Appeal No. 1996-1767 Page 15
Application No. 08/220,410
....” (Examiner’s Answer at 4.) We agree with the examiner
for the reasons aforementioned regarding the rejection under
§ 102(b). The appellants’ reliance on the recitation is not
persuasive.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the appellants point out what
the claims cover and allege generally that “[n]either Hirosaki
nor Fujii discloses or suggests this aspect ....” (Appeal Br.
at 11.) The examiner replies, “Fujii’s multipliers M1 and M2
effect the recited multiplying.” (Examiner’s Answer at 6.)
As aforementioned regarding the rejection under § 102(b), the
appellants’ treatment of the claims shows no error in the
rejection.
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(e).
Next, we address the obviousness of claims 18-24 under § 103.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007