Appeal 2006-2911
Application 10/005,551
(Answer 6). We find that Daniels clearly teaches this element. (Daniels, col. 4, l.
65 - col. 5, l. 5) and therefore, sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 15.
Finally, with respect to claim 16, without relying on any part of the record,
Appellants argue that the words “digital filtering circuit arrangement” constitute a
limitation not taught by Daniels. The Examiner asserts that the alleged limitation
merely recite intended use. Claim 16 explicitly recites a “digital filtering circuit
arrangement, according to claim 1, . . . .” (emphasis added). Giving the claim the
broadest reasonable interpretation, we find that the words “according to claim 1”
qualify the previous clause “[a] digital filtering arrangement” only to the extent
that the claim refers to the “circuit arrangement” in the preamble of claim 1 placing
claim 16 in dependent form. Accordingly, since Daniels discloses the claimed
features of claim 16, the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 16 is also sustained.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013