Appeal No. 95-2218
Application 07/902,073
C. Claims 13 and 14 would not have been obvious on this record
10. Claim 13 requires the detecting means to comprise
first comparator means for comparing the data pulse
delayed by said variable delay means to said window
pulse, second comparator means for comparing the DRDSS-
delayed data pulse to said window pulse, and third
comparator means for comparing said first and second
comparator means to produce an error indication if the
comparison of said first comparator means differs from
the comparison of said second comparator means.
11. The examiner builds on the premise that Pederson
teaches a first comparator 18. (Paper 9 at 5.) Appellant
concedes that the error detector 32 of diagnostic circuitry 18
(Fig. 2) corresponds to the first comparator means. (Paper 14
at 27.) According to the final rejection (Paper 9 at 5), the
combination of Pederson
would require two additional comparators. One would
compare the anticipator's delayed data pulse to the
window in order to account for zonal variations. An
error would occur if the two comparisons were
different, so a third comparator would be needed in
order to detect errors.
The examiner does not explain how the references, as understood
by one having ordinary skill, would have lead to this conclusion.
The answer does not defend the rationale in the final rejection,
but explains that "additional comparators presented in the claim
comprise duplicate components [and] that duplicating parts for a
multiplied effect is not the type of innovation for which a
patent monopoly is to be granted. See St. Regis Paper Co. v.
- 13 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007