Appeal No. 1998-1815 Page 8
Application No. 08/684,328
utilizing a column read amplifier for read operation or an
apparatus of any sort. To the contrary, the claims are still
method claims drawn to "[a] method of reading from memory
cells associated with corresponding bit lines in an integrated
circuit memory ...." Because claims 30-40 and 45-46 omit a
method, we are not persuaded that the claims cross the line of
demarcation drawn in the restriction requirement. Cf.
Applied Mats., Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Mats., 98 F.3d
1563, 15??, 40 USPQ2d 1481, 1484 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("In this
case consonance was not violated, for the process claims
remained in separate patents from the apparatus claims
although the scope of the process claims was modified.")
Therefore, we reverse the provisional rejection of claims 30-
40 and 45-46 over claims 5-7, 20-26, and 28-39 of the '282
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 claims 43
and 44 of the instant application. In the restriction
requirement of the '312 Application, he explained that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007