Appeal No. 1996-1767 Page 7
Application No. 08/220,410
Cir. 1993); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541,
550 (CCPA 1969). With this in mind, we address the
anticipation of claims 1-8, 12-16, and 25-32 under § 102(b);
the anticipation of claims 1, 4-8, 14-16, 25-30, and 32 under
§ 102(e); the obviousness of claims 18-24 under § 103; and the
adequacy of the written description of claims 9-11 under § 112
seriatim.
Anticipation of claims 1-8, 12-16, and 25-32 under § 102(b)
Regarding independent claims 1 and 14, the appellants
argue, “the sampling of the output [of Hirosaki] is not the
same as the sampling of the input.” (Appeal Br. at 6.) The
examiner replies, “[t]he sampling frequency of Hirosaki's two
interleaved input signals, i.e. S (Z), and the two output
1
signals from adder 145 are the same ....” (Examiner’s Answer
at 3-4.)
We agree with the examiner. Claim 1 specifies in
pertinent part “input means for inputting two interleaved
signals, said two interleaved signals being input at a
predetermined sampling frequency; ... a second
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007