Appeal No. 2001-1955
Application 08/989,917
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
McKinney. Claims 2-10 and 24-29 are also noted at the top of
page 2 of the reply brief to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer as
amplified upon here, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and
19-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Of the remaining claims on appeal,
claims 2-10 and 24-29, we sustain only the rejection of claims
2, 6-10 and 24-29.
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1 and 19-23 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by McKinney, appellants'
arguments with respect to independent claim 1 at pages 8 and 9 of
the principal brief on appeal as well as those set forth as to
this claim at page 2 of the reply brief focus upon the view best
expressed at the top of page 2 of the reply brief that "because
the input SIGNAL traverses at least a portion of every stage in
McKinney's circuit, McKinney does not teach or disclose a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007