Appeal No. 1998-1657 Page 5
Application No. 08/674,282
We begin by addressing the rejections for obviousness-type
double patenting.
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
Regarding the obviousness-type double patenting rejection
over claims 13-46 of the '328 Application, the appellant
argues, "[c]laims 5-7, 20-26, and 28-39 ... are directed to a
sense amplifier with a column read amplifier and local sense
amplifier drive transistors, and are not directed to a method
which is the subject of the related application." (Appeal Br.
at 39.) Regarding the obviousness-type double patenting over
claims 8, 9, and 14-50 of the '183 Application, the appellant
argues, "[c]laims 5-7, 20-26, and 28-39 are not directed to an
apparatus, that requires pass transistors nor local data write
driver circuits and which is the subject of the related
application." (Id. at 40.) The examiner collectively
responds, "claims 5-7,
20-26 and 28-39 ... have been amended and changed since the
original restriction requirement and hence are not consonant
with the restriction requirement made by the Examiner ...."
(Examiner's Answer at 8.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007