Appeal No. 2002-1217
Application No. 09/006,808
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants have indicated various groupings at page 3 of the brief. Therefore,
we will address appellants’ arguments with respect to these groupings. Appellants
argue that the examiner’s interpretation of the AAPA shows a disable signal coming
from a detection circuit is incorrect. (See brief at pages 3-4.) The examiner maintains
that if the AAPA sends a disable signal, then it is an “inherent function of the detector to
generate an enable signal when one of the receivers [sic] is disabled.” We disagree
with the examiner’s conclusion.
Appellants maintain that the AAPA does not disclose logic circuitry that activates
a first receiver when a first comparator detects a relatively low data rate and similar
activation of a second receiver when a high data rate is detected. (See brief at
page 3.) Appellants maintain that the prior art as depicted in figures 1-3 and
corresponding discussion in the specification disclose that both receivers are already
activated in the AAPA and the prior art teaches to then “disable” one of the two active
receivers with a disable signal rather than to detect the data rate and then “enable” one
of the two receivers which are not active. We agree with appellants. As pointed out by
our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007