Appeal No. 1997-2774 Application No. 08/080,471 elements because the reference performs the same function as claimed." We find no suggestion in Tanaka that the same function is performed, as Tanaka makes no mention of turning off the various devices, and, thus, we find no such equivalent elements. Further, as to the obviousness of limiting the time during which power is supplied, the prior art completely lacks a teaching or suggestion as to how and why to do so. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 2. Claims 7, 8, and 10 through 13 all depend from claim 6, and therefore include the same limitations noted above as lacking from Tanaka. The examiner combines Tanaka with Keesen (for claim 7), Yoshida (for claim 8), Barber (for claim 10), Onoe (for claim 11), Onoe and Spragins (for claim 12), and Onoe and Handbook (for claim 13), but none of the additional references cures the deficiencies of Tanaka detailed above in the discussion of the rejection of claim 6. Consequently, we cannot sustain the rejections of claims 7, 8, and 10 through 13. Claims 1, 27, and 28 include a means for or step of converting a portion of the signal and discarding the 11Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007