Appeal No. 2002-0140
Application No. 09/435,864
latching the output and that it would have been obvious “to have
coupled a full keeper to the output of the first stage of Wu as
taught by applicant’s prior art figure 3 for the purpose of
latching the output signal” (answer-page 5)
Appellants argue that there is no indication, in Wu, of a
desirability of coupling the output of a first stage in Wu and a
full-keeper. Further, appellants argue, making such a
combination would destroy the intended logic circuit operational
speed enhancement method of Wu by the addition of extra circuit
components since these extra components would “degrade its
operational speed” (brief-page 10). Appellants contend that Wu
“teaches away” from the proposed combination because it would
degrade the performance of the circuit described in Wu by slowing
the operational speed of the circuit as a whole.
We agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious
to provide for a full-keeper in Wu for the same reasons a full-
keeper is employed in prior art systems, such as shown in APA.
The advantage of a full-keeper for stabilization and connected to
an output of a logic gate for the purpose of latching the output
signal was well known, as depicted in APA and appellants do not
contend otherwise. Therefore, the artisan would have been well
-9–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007