Appeal No. 1998-2879
Application No. 08/474,856
Appellant’s argument (Brief, pages 10 and 11) concerning
the buffering of control signals in the system of claim 18 is
without merit since this claim does not recite such signals.
When this claim is given its broadest reasonable
interpretation, we find that the claimed buffered “signals”1
is broad enough to read on the data signals that are buffered
in Matsuo. For this reason, we will sustain the 35 U.S.C. §
102/35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claim 18. We will likewise
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102/35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of
claim 19 because appellant has not presented separate
patentability arguments for this claim.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 2, 9 and 20 based
upon the combined teachings of Matsuo and Redwine is reversed
because Matsuo is silent concerning a pull-up resistor that is
operable in connection with the buffer circuit, and the
“elements 43 and 44” in Redwine are not pull-up resistors
(Answer, page 6).
1During ex parte examination of an application, claims are
given their broadest reasonable interpretation, and
limitations appearing in the specification are not to be read
into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1,
5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007