Appeal No. 1997-0621
Application 08/368,679
4), “providing said input signal ... output signal" (instant
claim, lines 5 to 6) and “multiplexing ... in a round robin
manner ... multipliers” (instant claim, lines 7 to 8). Thus,
we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 11 over
Lish for the same rationale. Similarly, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of the dependent claims 12 to 16 over
Lish.
With respect to the independent method claim 17, it is
directed to Appellants’ embodiment of figure 2 where the roles
of the outputs of the FIR coefficients and the outputs of the
sample and hold circuits are interchanged relative to those in
figure 1. The Examiner has not addressed any specifics of the
claim. For similar reasons as for claim 11, we cannot sustain
the obviousness rejection of claim 17 and its dependent claims
18 to 20.
Obvious-type Double Patenting Rejection
The Examiner states:
Claims 1 to 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. 08/368,680.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical,
they are not patentably distinct from each other
because the scopes of the invention are [sic, is]
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007