Appeal No. 96-2224
Application No. 08/047,498
determining whether the specifically claimed structure is
obvious over the applied prior art.
For example, claim 3 recites that the third central
conductor forms an imbalance-balance conversion section for
sending a balanced output signal to the mixer. We agree with
appellants that the embodiments of Kane do not send a balanced
signal to the mixer of Kane. Even though a balanced signal
may occur at some point in the embodiments of Kane’s tuning
amplifier device, such balanced signals are unbalanced again
before they are output to Kane’s mixer device. Therefore, we
do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 3 or of
claim 2 which depends therefrom.
Independent claim 4 recites many of the same
limitations which were considered above with respect to claim
3. With respect to these similar limitations, the examiner
and appellants rely on essentially the same arguments which
were considered in the rejection of claim 3. Therefore, for
reasons already discussed above, we conclude that the prior
art relied on by the examiner and the analysis provided on
this record is not sufficient to demonstrate the obviousness
of the invention as recited in claim 4. Therefore, we do not
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007