Appeal No. 2002-0156 Page 6
Application No. 09/300,757
with claim 1, it is not necessary that the pulse width of the first output signal (DOWN)
change in response to the phase delay between the two applied signals. The claim
only requires that the “amount of overlap” between the up and down signal pulses be
adjusted based, at least in part, upon the magnitude of the phase delay between the
two applied signals. As discussed supra, Noguchi clearly discloses the claimed
relationship. Likewise, appellant’s argument that the first and second output signals of
Noguchi have different pulse widths is not persuasive because the claim language says
nothing about the actual pulse widths of these signals; it is concerned only with the
“amount of overlap” of these signals and the adjustment of that overlap based, at least
in part, upon the magnitude of the phase delay between the two applied signals.
Since none of appellant’s arguments are persuasive of error in the examiner’s
position, and claims 2 and 3 will stand or fall with claim 1, in accordance with the
grouping of claims at page 6 of the principal brief, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. §102 (e).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007