Appeal No. 2004-0608
Application No. 09/886,198
At the outset, we note that appellants have elected to group all the claims as
standing or falling together. (Brief at page 2.)
From our review of the examiner’s rejection, we find that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of anticipation by the teachings of Cytera and the
discussion of the function of the circuit of Cytera which appellants have not adequately
rebutted or shown error therein. (Answer at pages 3-5.) The examiner has provided a
discussion of the functioning of the capacitor of Cytera and that the filters have a
differential comparator that would “be realized using a differential amplifier which will
provide isolation between the input and output signals.” Appellants have not shown
error in the examiner’s analysis of the circuitry taught by Cytera. Appellants merely
argue that the disclosure of Cytera does not disclose “at least two cascaded filters”
(brief at page 3) and that the claimed “at least the two filters (2, 3) comprises an
isolating amplifier (T5-T8) coupled between the filter output (O1, O2) and the load
(ZI, ZQ).” Appellants argue that Cytera discloses in that column 9 that the elements
44, 46, 52, and 54 are comparators and not an isolating amplifier. (Brief at page 4.)
Here, we find that appellants have not directly addressed the examiner‘s interpretation
of the teachings of Cytera in the brief and have not filed a reply brief to further
discuss the examiner’s interpretation of the teachings of Cytera. Therefore, we
will accept the examiner’s rationale and sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
and dependent claims 2-7 which appellants have elected to group together.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007