Appeal No. 2006-1881
Application 10/145,408
We also agree with the examiner’s additional reliance upon Raman in
combination with Ker in the fourth stated rejection of claims 18, 25, 47 and 48. The
examiner’s basic rationale is expressed at pages 9 through 11 of the answer. As in
dependent claim 18, which depends from independent 17, it is stated to further comprise
a driver logic circuit. As to this representative claim, we note that the pre-driver circuits
515 in figure 27 of Ker may comprise a broadly recited driver logic circuit. To the extent
this recitation is intended to be an additional circuit element as shown in disclosed figure
4 as element 418 in addition to the pre-drivers of 416, the examiner’s additional reliance
of Raman was appropriate within 35 U.S.C. § 103. Logic circuit 26 in figure 1 feeds the
pre-driver circuits 24 and 28 in the same manner as appellant’s disclosed invention does
in figure 4. The pre-driver circuits 515 in figure 27 of Ker do not stand alone but are fed
input/output information from/to the remaining parts of the disclosed integrated circuits
structure of which figure 27 is only a part. The entire integrated circuit structure of Ker
appears to correspond to the circuit device 12 in figure 1 of Raman as a whole. In
accordance with Raman’s background discussion with respect to input/output devices in
the context of transmission and reception circuits, this compares with the earlier noted
discussion at the bottom of column 9 of Ker with respect to the third embodiment in that
reference. Obviously, within 35 U.S.C. § 103 as stated in the paragraph beginning at
Raman’s column 3, line 19, various logic elements provide signals to his logic circuit 26,
such as the data and clock signal shown in figure 1.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007