Appeal No. 2002-1217
Application No. 09/006,808
game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529
(Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore, we look to the limitations set forth in independent claim 1.
Independent claim 1 clearly recites “logic circuitry for activating said first receiver
section when said first comparator detects said relatively low data rate signal and for
activating said second receiver section when said second comparator detects said
relatively high data rate signal.” [Emphasis added.] From our understanding of the verb
“activate,” some device must not be active or functioning at the time just prior to the time
that it is “activated.” Therefore, appellants have an implied basis for the argument that
the prior art receivers are both active and one is disabled in the prior art rather than
starting with two receivers that are not active and enable one of them in response to the
detection of a high or low data rate. (See brief at page 4.)
The examiner merely maintains that there is no support for the argument that the
receivers are initially disabled. (See answer at page 5.) Additionally, the examiner
relies upon the language “asserting or de-asserting the FLP signal” and the asserted
signal causes the generation of a disable signal. The examiner maintains that the other
signal from the other OR gate (108 or 109) would be an enable signal. (See answer at
page 5-6.) We cannot accept this rationale since the receiver is already active and
would already be enabled/activated to process the input signal. Therefore, we find that
the examiner has not shown that the AAPA teaches every element as recited in
independent claim 1, and we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent
claims 2-6.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007