Appeal No. 1997-0583
Application 08/368,680
circuits” (instant claim, lines 5 and 6) and “multiplexing a
plurality of slave sample and hold circuit output signals in
round robin manner to at least two of said multipliers”
(instant claim, lines 7 to 8). Therefore, for the same
rationale as for claim 1, we cannot sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 15 and it's dependent claims 16 though 20
over Lish. Obvious-type Double Patenting Rejection
The Examiner states:
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims
1-20 of copending application Serial No. 08/368,679.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical,
they are not patentably distinct from each other
because the scope of the invention are [sic, is]
identical. It is noted that the master/slaver [sic,
slave] features in the application are not essential
features [answer, page 3].
Even though Appellants request that this rejection be
held in abeyance until the claims in the two applications are
in allowable form but-for this issue, we, nevertheless, agree
with Appellants’ second position on this issue, i.e., the
instant claimed invention is not obvious in light of the
claims of application S.N. 08/368,679 [brief, page 5]. None
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007