Appeal No. 1996-1767 Page 12
Application No. 08/220,410
Dependent claims 2-8 and 12-13 and independent claim 32
are not argued separately and thus fall with independent claim
1. Dependent claims 26-31 are not argued separately and thus
fall with independent claim 25. Therefore, we affirm the
rejection of claims 1-8, 12-16, and 25-32 under § 102(b).
Next, we address the anticipation of claims 1, 4-8, 14-16, 25-
30, and 32 under § 102(e).
Anticipation of claims 1, 4-8, 14-16,
25-30, and 32 under § 102(e)
Regarding independent claims 1 and 14, the appellants
argue, “the Fujii reference samples the data at a slower rate
than the input rate.” (Appeal Br. at 7.) The examiner
replies, “the predetermined sampling frequency of the inputted
interleaved signal, e.g. Xll and X13, is the same as the
output frequency of the two signals from adder Al.”
(Examiner’s Answer at 4-5.)
We agree with the examiner. As aforementioned regarding
the rejection under § 102(b), the appellants erred by reading
limitations from their specification into claims 1 and 14.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007