Appeal No. 2001-1615
Application No. 09/053,251
that because the second DAC’s accuracy is lower than the first
DAC’s accuracy, it produces more errors than the first DAC, and
that the second DAC’s range is less than the first DAD’s range
because it uses 12 bits while the first DAC has 16 bits. None of
this discussion by the examiner concerns a size comparison of the
range of the second DAC (second range) and the error of the first
DAC (first error)1.
The Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Whereas we will not sustain the rejection of the independent
claims, we will not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 5-
10, 14-20 and 22-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). None of the other
prior art applied against the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C.
103(a) has been relied on by the examiner as teaching the
1 Although we will not sustain this rejection, we agree with the
examiner that the accuracy of Ginthner’s DAC’s is equivalent to
appellants’ DAC errors. This is supported by appellants’ SUMMARY
portion of the specification which includes discussion of the
accuracy of digital-to-analog conversion. We also agree with the
examiner that Ginthner alternately selects between first and
second DACs 310 and 320 based on the teaching at column 3, lines
12-19, that simultaneous switching of the first and second DACs
are avoided by additional circuitry which holds the switching of
the first and second DACs as necessary to avoid simultaneous
switching.
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007