Appeal No. 1998-0165
Application 08/566,270
OPINION
The rejection of the claims as anticipated by Anderson is
set forth on page 4 of the Final Rejection. According to the
examiner, all limitations are met by the circuitry shown in
Figure 2 of the reference.
Appellant does not submit arguments with respect to
separate patentability of any of the claims. Appellant refers
to substantially identical language appearing in the two
independent claims (1 and 10) on appeal as allegedly
distinguishing over the prior art. (See Brief, page 9.) In
accordance with the arguments, we consider Claims 1 and 10 as
representative of the subject matter on appeal, and decide
disposition on that basis. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
Appellant argues that the language which purportedly
distinguishes over the reference sets forth “a switching
device [Claim 1; or a “modulator,” Claim 10] comprising a
transistor driven into a saturation mode if a select signal is
at a first voltage and driven into an off mode if the select
signal is at a second voltage.” (Id.)
- 4 -4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007