Appeal No. 1996-3324
Application No. 08/132,969
arguments and, therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
dependent claims 6 and 7 is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 6 and 7 as being
unpatentable over the Data Converter
Reference Manual in view of Connors.
From the Examiner’s statement of the rejection (Answer,
page 6), it is apparent that Connors was applied for the sole
purpose of addressing the claimed separate output channels
which the
Examiner found lacking in the Data Converter Reference Manual.
Connors, however, does not overcome the innate deficiencies of
the Data Converter Reference Manual with respect to the
recited independence of the digital inputs to the D/A
converters and, therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 6 and 7.
In summary, we have not sustained the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejections of claims 1-4 based on the Data Converter Reference
Manual nor of claims 6 and 7 based on Okuyama. We have also
not sustained the obviousness reaction of claims 6 and 7 based
on the Data Converter Reference Manual and Connors. We have
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007