Appeal 2007-1427
Application 09/826,240
Dependent claims 37 and 38
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 37 as being
unpatentable over Mittal for the same reasons discussed supra with respect
to claim 23. Likewise, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 38
as being unpatentable over Mittal for the same reasons discussed supra with
respect to claim 24.
Dependent claims 26, 27, 35, 36, 39, and 40
Lastly, we consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 26, 27, 35, 36,
39, and 40 as being unpatentable over Mittal.
We have considered each of dependent claims 26, 27, 35, 36, 39, and
40, as separately argued by Appellant. With respect to each of claims 26,
27, 35, 36, 39, and 40, we find Appellant has: (1) recited the language of the
claim, (2) asserted that the limitations are not taught or suggested by Mittal,
and, then, (3) failed to respond to the specifics of the Examiner’s rejection
(i.e., we find Appellant has failed to traverse the Examiner’s finding that
combining certain well known elements with Mittal would have been
obvious).
For example, with respect to dependent claims 26 and 39, Appellant
states that both these claims require that the mode selection circuit include a
sample and hold circuit coupled to two voltage comparators. Appellant then
merely asserts that Mittal does not teach or suggest these limitations (See Br
16). We note that the Examiner does not rely on Mittal for the teaching of a
sample and hold circuit coupled to two voltage comparators (See Answer 11,
¶ 3). Instead, the Examiner, as finder of fact, has determined that sample
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013