Appeal No. 1999-1345 Page 10
Application No. 08/482,556
this understanding, the limitations recite bringing into
existence or producing a first derivative signal.
The prior art teaches the limitations. At oral hearing,
the appellants’ representative admitted that Hebert’s signal
processor produces a first derivative signal. Furthermore,
the appellants characterize the first derivative as a signal
“that exists .... ” (Reply Br. at 5 (emphasis added).)
Whatever the admission and characterization, the reference’s
“first differentiator[,]” col. 5, l. 39, necessarily brings
into existence or produces a first derivative signal. Because
Hebert’s first differentiator brings into existence or
produces a first derivative signal, we are persuaded that the
reference discloses the limitations of "generating a first
derivative signal ...." Therefore, we affirm the rejection of
claims 33 and 40 as being anticipated by Hebert. We proceed
to the second group of claims.
B. Claims 34 and 41
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007