Appeal No. 1996-3324
Application No. 08/132,969
just a single converter is shown rather than the required two
which would correspond to the recited second and third
converters.
On careful review of the Okuyama reference in light of
Appellant’s arguments, we are in agreement with the Examiner’s
stated position in the Answer. The description, for example,
at column 3, lines 37-40 of Okuyama indicates that separate
switch groups, S11-S14 and S21-S24 are controlled by separate
digital signals from registers R11 and R12. In our view,
under the definition of a D/A converter agreed to by the
Examiner and Appellant, this portion of Okuyama clearly
describes two such D/A converters separately controlled by
digital inputs and would correspond to the claimed second and
third D/A converters. Accordingly, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) rejection of independent claim 1, as well as dependent
claims 2-4 not separately argued by Appellant, is sustained.
With respect to dependent claims 6 and 7, we note that
the Examiner has grouped these claims together in the
statement of the rejection, but has not addressed the claim
limitations contained therein. Accordingly, on the record
before us, we are constrained to agree with Appellant’s
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007