Appeal No. 1997-3843
Application No. 08/221,030
the phase overlap between the first and second control signals.” Appellant argues that
Nishita does not teach two control signals applied to the capacitor to apply and remove
charge proportional to the phase overlap between the first and second control signals.
“Overlap” as a noun is defined as “a part or portion that overlaps or is overlapped.” As a
verb, “overlap” is defined as “to lie or extend over and cover part of”; or “to have an area or
2
a range in common with.” Appellant argues that an important difference between Nishita
and the present invention is that the control signals of Nishita are never allowed to be high
at the same time. Appellant further identifies Figure 7A of Nishita to show that the two
control signals are never both in the high state at the same time. (See brief at page 13.)
We agree with appellant that Nishita does not teach the two signals overlap, therefore, any
control therefrom could not be proportional to the overlap of the two signals. Therefore, the
examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of anticipation, and we cannot sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 7-12.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner relies on Pearson to
teach the use of a clock signal which has been divided down to a lower frequency, but the
examiner does not rely upon Pearson to teach or suggest the claim limitation concerning
the proportional control. From our review of Pearson, we find that Pearson does not
2 The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by
Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007