Appeal No. 95-3888
Application No. 08/l05,244
circuits” are “connected in parallel,” [answer-page 4], we
find nothing misdescriptive as instant Figure 1 clearly shows
the circuits “connected in parallel.”
We turn, finally, to the prior art rejections.
We will not sustain the rejections of claims 1 through 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because it is clear that McMahan does
not anticipate the subject matter of claims 1 and 2 and it is
clear that Pilarcik does not anticipate the subject matter of
claims 1 and 3.
With regard to McMahan, this reference is directed to
selecting buffers to match impedances with the different
requirements of different transmission lines. It neither has
any mechanical mechanism which is controlled nor does it
disclose the selection of different drive voltage levels, both
of which are requirements of instant claims 1 and 2.
Therefore, McMahan cannot anticipate the instant claims
subject matter.
The examiner explicitly states that no weight is being
given to the claim limitation of a “mechanical mechanism”
[answer-page 10]. This, of course, is clear error and cause,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007