Appeal No. 2001-1615
Application No. 09/053,251
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ginthner/Gersbach in view of the admitted
prior art.
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellants
with regard to the propriety of these rejections are set forth in
the examiner’s answer (Paper No.10) and the appellants’ brief
(Paper No. 9).
Appellants’ Invention
The invention is described at pages 2 and 3 of the brief.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claims 1-3, 11-13 and 21
We will not sustain this rejection. Independent claims 1,
11 and 21, the only independent claims on appeal, recite “…the
second range being ... greater than the first error…” or words to
that effect. We agree with appellants that it has not been
established that Ginthner teaches the above subject matter. The
examiner’s position in response to appellants’ position is set
forth at page 6, lines 16-21, of the answer. There, the examiner
does not address appellants’ position with respect to the
relative sizes of the second range and the first error. It is
merely asserted that Ginthner defines the second DAC’s accuracy
as less with respect to its range than that of the first DAC,
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007