Appeal No. 97-0604
Application 08/306,766
and the output signal are proportional to the supply or
operating voltage. The comparison of figures in Macy and
Florida with the instant application fails to consider this
limitation of the claims.
The examiner’s attempt to define the term
“proportional” to mean “related to” also cannot be accepted.
The disclosed invention and the claims use the term
proportional in its correct mathematical sense that the drive
signal and the output signal change in a linear ratio with
changes in the supply voltage. The output signals in Macy and
Florida are not proportional to the supply voltage because
Macy and Florida attempt to keep the output signal at a
constant value regardless of the value of the supply voltage.
Thus, the output signals in Macy and Florida are neither
proportional to the supply voltage nor related to the supply
voltage because they are intended to be independent of the
supply voltage.
For all the reasons discussed above, there is at least
one feature of all the appealed claims which is not disclosed
by Macy or Florida. Therefore, the rejections of the examiner
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007