Appeal No. 1998-1657 Page 9
Application No. 08/674,282
of claims 5-7, 20-26, and 28-39 over claims 13-46 of the '328
Application.
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting over the '183 Application
The examiner fails to show a loss of consonance between
claims 8, 9, and 14-50 of the '183 Application and the claims
of the instant application. In the restriction requirement of
the '312 Application, he explained that the third group
comprised "[c]laims 8-9, drawn to a sense amplifier utilizing
a data write driver circuit for write operation ...." (Paper
No. 3 at 2.) It is uncontested that these are the claims in
the '183 Application. (Appeal Br. at 40.)
Although claims 5-7, 20-26, and 28-39 have been amended
since the restriction requirement, the examiner fails to
allege, let alone show, that the claims have been altered to
recite a sense amplifier utilizing a data write driver circuit
for a write operation. To the contrary, the claims omit a
data write driver circuit. The claims further omit a write
operation. Because claims 5-7, 20-26, and 28-39 recite
neither a data write driver circuit nor a write operation, we
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007