Ex Parte Nakayama - Page 2



               Appeal 2007-3837                                                                            
               Application 10/631,897                                                                      

           1          Christopher              US 4,731,851       Mar. 15, 1988                            
           2                                                                                               
           3          Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated                
           4   by Christopher (Final Rejection 2 and Answer 3).                                            
           5                                   BACKGROUND                                                  
           6          The invention is related to a circuit that adjusts the decibel level of an           
           7   input signal.  The circuit includes a plurality of parallel signal lines that are           
           8   shifted a number of bits (FIG. 5 items 221-226).  A control circuit (FIG. 5,                
           9   item 250), set for the desired decibel level, controls one or more switches                 
          10   (FIG. 5, items 231-233).  The switches are controlled by the control circuit                
          11   to select among the outputs of the signal lines (Specification 18:7-11).  If an             
          12   output is not needed, a default “0” is generated (FIG. 5, item 234,                         
          13   Specification 19:5-10).  Adder circuits (FIG. 5 235-237) add the outputs                    
          14   from the switches to get the desired decibel level output signal (FIG. 5 item               
          15   143).                                                                                       
          16          B.  Issue                                                                            
          17          The issue is whether Applicants have shown that the Examiner erred                   
          18   in determining claim 5 to be unpatentable over Christopher.                                 
          19          C.  Findings of fact (“FF”)                                                          
          20          The record supports the following findings of fact as well as any other              
          21   findings of fact set forth in this opinion by at least a preponderance of the               
          22   evidence.                                                                                   
          23          1.    Applicant’s sole pending claim 5 is the subject of this appeal.                

                                                    2                                                      



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013