Appeal No. 95-4545
Application No. 08/094220
1992); In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1304, 190 USPQ 425 427-28
(CCPA 1976);
In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA
1972). Therefore, the fact that the prior art suggested
replacing Nagasawa’s pull down circuit 61 with Shinohara’s
pull down circuit for a reason different than disclosed by
appellant, does not change the fact that the prior art
suggested a level shift circuit within the scope of Claim 1.
The rejection will be sustained.
Claims 2 and 3
Claims 2 and 3 stand or fall together with claim 1
because appellants have presented no arguments for the
separate patentability of Claim 1-3 under 37 CFR § 1.192.
Because we sustain the rejection of Claim 1, we also sustain
the rejections of claim 2 and 3.
Claim 4
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007