Appeal No. 2001-0740
Application 09/054,415
in the same sense as appellants' amplifier in Fig. 2 and has not
shown error. The rejection of claim 14 is sustained.
Claim 15
The examiner finds that power control circuit 20 controls
the power (current) to the active amplifier 5, thus controlling
the slew rate and anticipating claim 15 (FR6).
Appellants assert that Wang does not show "during an
operational phase when slew is expected, increasing current
available to the amplifier irrespective of actual signal level
applied to the amplifier" as recited in claim 15 (Br14).
The examiner has not convinced us that the subject matter of
claim 15 is anticipated. It appears that the examiner may be
silently relying on the nonenablement rejection as a basis for
the rejection. The claim language calls for increasing the
current available to the amplifier when slew is expected, which
implies that the current is less when slew is not expected and we
so interpret the claim. Wang sets the current to the amplifier
based on the desired resolution and for a time until another
resolution is set. Therefore, Wang does not increase the current
during an operational phase when slew is "expected." The
rejection of claim 15 is reversed.
Claim 16
- 26 -
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007