Appeal No. 2006-0871
Application No. 10/678,799
The examiner responds that appellant did admit that the
voltage signal of Falk contains the interference of the current
signal. The examiner also asserts that in the preferred
embodiment of Falk there would be no residual interference
[supplemental answer, pages 2-4].
Appellant responds that he does not admit that the voltage
signal of Falk contains the interference of the current signal as
recited in the claimed invention. Appellant further asserts that
the comparison in the applied prior art is based on a previous
comparison between a voltage signal containing interference
“approximately proportional” to the interference contained in the
current signal with the current signal which contains the
interference. Appellant argues that the prior art fails to
suggest where to find a voltage signal which meets the
limitations recited in the claimed invention [second reply brief,
pages 1-3].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3,
6, 11-13 and 16. Although we agree with the examiner that the
voltage signal in Falk contains the interference signal of the
current signal, we find, nevertheless, that the operation to
control compensation in Falk fails to teach the claimed
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007