Appeal No. 1998-0153
Application No. 08/497,227
Appellants argue that Ta does not teach or suggest the same signal processing as
appellants’ invention. While we agree with appellants concerning the disclosed invention,
we are constrained to review the examiner’s rejection of the claimed invention as set forth
in independent claims 1, 4 and 8 over the prior art combination of the admitted prior art in
Figures 4 and 5 in view of the broad teachings and suggestion of Ta to use a delay and a
Schmitt Trigger circuit to stablize the output of a comparator. (See Ta at col. 2, lines 47-51
and col. 6, lines 30-37.) As appellants recognize, the examiner has provided extensive
discussion of the references and the operation thereof in combination, but appellants
equate the quantity of detail as evidencing nonobviousness and use of hindsight in the
examiner’s formulation of the rejection. (See reply brief at pages 2-7.) We disagree with
appellants and view the examiner’s statements as providing a convincing line of reasoning.
Appellants argue throughout the brief that Ta has not recognized the same problem
and that the goals and function of appellants’ invention are different. (See brief specifically
at page 11.) While we agree with appellants’ statement, appellants have not addressed
the claimed invention nor the combination of the teachings applied against the claims.
Appellants argue at great length throughout the briefs the difference in signals between Ta
and “appellants’ invention,” but appellants do not
identify specific claim language or address the combination of teachings. In our view,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007