Appeal No. 2006-1204
Application No. 10/379,006
We note that independent claim 40 reads in part as follows:
“a synchronous circuit capable of providing a signal
indicative of an impedance mismatch between the driver
circuit and the load; and a controller for selecting
one of the first plurality of impedances to reduce the
impedance mismatch in response to the signal.”
Thus, the claim does require a synchronous circuit and the
selection of an impedance from the driver circuit.
We agree with Appellants, as noted in the discussion of
claim 13 above, that Mooney does not teach a synchronous circuit
as defined in the present application, nor does it teach a
controller for selecting one of the first plurality of impedances
to reduce the impedance mismatch in response to the signal. We
further agree with Appellants that Mooney does not provide any
motivation to modify the prior art in order to yield the claimed
invention.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the invention as set forth in claims 40 and 45.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 40 and 45.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007