Appeal No. 97-0604
Application 08/306,766
the drive signal and the output signal are proportional to the
supply voltage. Appellants argue that neither Macy nor
Florida discloses this means or step.
The examiner responds that there is clearly a power
supply voltage in Macy and Florida, and this voltage is
applied to the drive circuit of the transducer. The examiner
argues that since the drive signal of the references and the
power supply voltage are “related” to each other, they must be
proportional in the manner recited in the independent claims.
The examiner also attempts to show that the elements of
appellant’s Figure 1 are present in the figures of Macy and
Florida. In response, appellant argues that two items being
“related” does not establish that the relationship is
“proportional” as recited in the independent claims.
We will not sustain either of the examiner’s
rejections. At the outset, we note that the examiner’s
attempt to show that the same elements are present in
appellant’s Figure 1, Macy’s Figure 16 and Florida’s Figure 5
is completely irrelevant to the question of whether Macy or
Florida anticipates the claimed invention. As noted above,
each of the independent claims recites that the drive signal
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007