Appeal 2007-3837
Application 10/631,897
1 Examiner found with respect to Christopher (FFs 4, 5 and 8). For these
2 reasons, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
3 Applicant next argues that Christopher’s switch means does not
4 function to select outputs of the plurality of signal lines or an all “0” as
5 recited per claim 5. Specifically, Applicant argues:
6 In Christopher, control signals CO and C1 are input into
7 gate 518. Gate 518 controls gating circuit 510, while control
8 signal C1 controls gating circuits 512 and 514. These gating
9 circuits pass the signals from dividers 504, 506, and 508 to
10 summing circuit 516 depending on the control signals C0 and
11 C1. However, there is no switch in Christopher with the
12 function recited in claim 5 for selecting outputs of said plurality
13 of signal lines or all “0”. (Br. 10).
14
15 Applicant’s argument is conclusory and not meaningful. Merely
16 rehashing what the reference does show and concluding that it does not meet
17 a particular limitation is not helpful to the trier of fact and certainly does not
18 rise to the level of showing error in the Examiner’s findings. Does the
19 Applicant contend that none of the gates function to select outputs from the
20 plurality of signal lines, and if so, why not? Or does Applicant contend that
21 Christopher does not function to select from an “all 0” and if so, why not?
22 Or does Applicant contend that Christopher does not function to do both -
23 that none of the gates function to select outputs from the plurality of signal
24 lines and select from an “all 0”, and if so, why not?
25 The Examiner explicitly found that gating elements 510, 512, and 514
26 (FIG. 6) meet the switching means functional limitation since the outputs of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013