Appeal No. 1998-1700
Application No. 08/268,460
appellant's Brief (Paper No. 14, filed July 2, 1996) and Reply
Brief (Paper No. 19, filed June 30, 1997) for appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art reference, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1
and 12.
The examiner asserts (Answer, pages 4 and 5) that
Tjahjadi teaches using plural zero-crossing points to generate
the sampling clock. More specifically, the examiner latches
onto Tjahjadi's use of the word "points" in both the abstract
and column 22, line 25, and relies on the individual word
rather than looking to the entire disclosure. The examiner
should note that although Tjahjadi mentions locking onto the
zero-crossing points (in the abstract), the next sentence
refers to "[t]he lock onto the zero-crossing point" (i.e., a
single point). Similarly, in the sentence after that which
discusses synchronizing with the zero crossing points P (in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007