Appeal 2007-0157
Application 10/984,584
Appellant argues that:
The advantage discussed in Hodges accrues to a buffer in a digital
circuit, not an analog amplifier such as shown by Hsu. The
advantages of Hodges are irrelevant to the amplifier of Hsu because it
is used in a different type of circuit. Also, the advantages of Hsu
(providing a gain) are irrelevant to a buffer in a digital circuit which
only switches between high and low
(Reply Br. 3). Here, we would agree with Appellant concerning a specific
field of endeavor or circuit, but we do not find either recited in the instant
claim language. Here, we find no specific field of endeavor or circuit in the
language of independent claim 1. Considering the general teachings of Hsu
and Hodges, we find that the general teachings are both applicable to both
analog and digital circuits or a combination of them as in a sample and hold
circuit where a digital value is sampled and held/buffered for digital
processing by some further digital circuitry. Therefore, we do not find that
the Examiner is completely baseless as Appellant contends, nor do we find
that Hsu and Hodges expressly teach away from the combination as
Appellant contends. We find that Appellant has not identified any specific
language or teaching to support the contention that “both Hsu and Hodges
teach away from the combination” (Br. 16).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has used Appellant’s disclosure as a
road map to piece together the claimed invention from the prior art (Br. 16).
We do not agree with Appellant. Appellant contends that the Examiner has
not presented evidence of a reasonable expectation of success and analysis
of the cascaded design of an amplifier (Br. 17). We find it within the level
of skill in the art to cascade multiple amplifiers to compound their gain. The
teachings of Hodges suggest having a circuit on the output which isolates the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013