Appeal No. 1997-0621
Application 08/368,679
how the specific connections among the claimed elements are
made obvious and why. The Examiner, in his response [answer,
page 5], contends that claim 1 does not call for the input
signal Vin to be directly connected to each sample and hold
circuit. However, it is clear from the limitation “a
plurality of sample and hold circuits, each ... to sample said
input ..." (instant claim, lines 5 to 7) that the input
signal has to be connected to each sample and hold circuit
directly. If not, the particular sample and hold circuit will
not be sampling the input signal. Furthermore, the Examiner
has not addressed at all the limitation “a plurality of
multiplexers, each ... circuits” (instant claim, lines 8 to
12). Thus, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 1 over Lish. With respect to dependent claims 2 to 10,
they at least contain the limitations discussed above.
Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
these claims.
Regarding the method claim 11, it is directed to the
embodiment of Appellants’ figure 1. It contains the
limitations corresponding to those discussed above, for
example, “supplying ... multiplier” (instant claim, lines 3 to
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007