Appeal No. 1997-0440
Application No. 08/582,237
the first input at 12, and this input operates to keep the
first output (i.e., E ) from experiencing an increase in its
o
magnitude, see the limited value E for E in Fig. 2. The2 o
Examiner has thus made a prima facie case of anticipation.
Appellant has not offered a specific rebuttal. Therefore, we
sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1, and its grouped
claims 2 and 5 to 7 over Beaudette.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 to 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over
Veranth
We again take claim 1 as the representative of the group.
The Examiner has presented [answer, page 4] the manner how he
designates the various components of the circuit as the
various claimed elements. For example, he identifies the
second amplifier as comprising “15, R4, 23 and 24" [id.] and
the second output as the signal at the node between 23 and 24
(answer, page 11). Thus, the Examiner asserts that the second
output from the second “current sourcing comparator” 15 is in
communication with the first input 12 of amplifier 14, and by
definition, the first output (the output of amplifier 14) is
clamped (see waveform 27), that is, it is kept from changing,
or experiencing an increase. Thus, we conclude that the
Examiner has established a prima facie case of anticipation.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007