Appeal No. 1997-3437
Application 08/315,740
7] and Appellant [brief, pages 7 to 11 and reply brief, pages
1 to 5]. The Examiner considers the two voltage outputs of
differential amplifier 3 of Yamanaka being inputted to
amplifier A of differential amplifier 1 as equivalent to the
claimed current detector measuring output current. We do not
agree. The differential amplifier 1 merely compares the two
output voltage signals. Further, the Examiner asserts, in
meeting the limitation of “means for changing the open-loop
frequency response” (claim 24), that the differential
amplifier 3 of Yamanaka inherently possesses such a
characteristic. We do not agree. The differential amplifier
3 of Yamanaka is designed to equivalize its two output
voltages and circuits 1 and 2 provide a feedback to the
differential amplifier 3 to achieve that goal.
There is no showing by the Examiner that the differential
amplifier 3 of Yamanaka must necessarily have an open loop
frequency response to a current output comparison as is
required under the inherency principle. Therefore, we do not
sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 24 over Yamanaka.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007