Appeal No. 1997-0830
Application 08/132,998
brief stating that independent claims 27 and 35 require the
output of the first selector circuit to be inputted into the
second selector circuit. In particular, on page 10 of the
reply brief, Appellants quote from claims 27 and 35 showing
that the claimed language does require that the output of the
first selector circuit is then inputted into the second
selector circuit.
Upon our review of Appellants' claims 27 through 50,
we agree with Appellants that the claims do require a serial
connection between the first and second selector circuits in
that they recite that the output of the first selector circuit
is inputted into the second selector circuit. Turning to
figure 9b of Takahara, we note that Takahara discloses a first
selector circuit 21 and a second selector circuit 22 which are
in parallel and thereby do not meet Appellants' claimed
language. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 27 through 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 5 through 10 and 13 through 15 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We find that Takahara fails to provide
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007