Ex parte MONTI et al. - Page 13

              Appeal No. 95-3917                                                                                                                          
              Application 07/861,144                                                                                                                      


                       Figure 1 of Kalaf discloses an autonomous gain normalization circuit.  "The output of the input                                    

              circuit 10 is provided to a transimpedance amplifier 12 which comprises a reset switch 20, a fixed capacitor                                

              22 and a plurality of switchable capacitors 24-30 connectable in parallel with the fixed capacitor 22 via                                   

              switches 32-38, which preferably comprise transistors" (column 3, lines 39-44).  "[C]onnecting the                                          

              switchable capacitors 24-30 in parallel with the fixed capacitor 22 reduces the gain of the transimpedance                                  

              amplifier 12 by an amount proportional to the ratio of the switched capacitor 24-30 to the fixed capacitor                                  

              22" (column 3, lines 59-63).  "The feedback circuit 44 [unnumbered in figure 1] is operative to effect                                      

              connection of selected capacitors 24-30 in parallel with the fixed capacitor in direct response to the value                                

              of the digital output word" (column 4, lines 26-29).  Thus, Kalaf has a network of a plurality of                                           

              interconnected passive elements (capacitors 24-30) and a plurality of corresponding logic gates (switches                                   

              32-38) which selectively include or exclude the passive elements.  The examiner finds that Kalaf does not                                   

              specifically disclose that the feedback circuit is a decoder, but concludes that it would have been obvious                                 

              to use a decoder in view of the language "that various circuits are possible for effecting such switching in                                

              direct response to the state of individual bits contained within the digital output word" (column 4,                                        

              lines 29-32).                                                                                                                               

                       Appellants' arguments are limited to the argument that Kalaf does not suggest any relevance to                                     

              trimming.  These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons stated in the rejection over Merrick.  Again,                                 

              appellants' reiteration of the limitations of claims 1, 8, 14, and 20 generally as not being met (Brief,                                    

                                                                    - 13 -                                                                                

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007