Appeal No. 2001-0740
Application 09/054,415
The examiner finds that when the resolution control is
changed to I, 2I, or 4I, the current to the amplifier is
decreased and claim 16 is anticipated (FR10).
Appellants argue that Wang does not show "decreasing current
available to the amplifier during an operational phase when
little activity is expected" as recited in claim 16 (Br14).
Claim 16 is the converse of claim 15. 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
decrease the current during an operational phase when little
activity is expected. The rejection of claim 16 is reversed.
Claim 17
The examiner finds that current mirrors 40-44/36 and
27/29/34/35 are controlled to switch current in and out to
control power to amplifier 22, 28, thus anticipating claim 17
(FR10).
Appellants assert that Wang does not show "using two current
mirrors to provide power to the amplifier" and "switching one
current mirror in or out to control power to the amplifier
without adversely affecting the amplifier" in claim 17 (Br14).
The examiner's findings appear reasonable and appellants
bare assertion that Wang does not show the limitation does not
- 27 -
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007