Appeal No. 2006-1204
Application No. 10/379,006
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With respect to the Mooney et al. reference (“Mooney”
hereinafter), Appellants argue that Mooney does not disclose a
synchronous circuit as defined in the present application, nor
does it teach the selection of an impedance from the driver
circuit. In particular, at page 8 of the Brief, Appellants state
that:
Mooney does not describe or suggest a synchronous
circuit, as defined in the present application.
Accordingly, Mooney fails to describe or suggest
providing a signal from a synchronous circuit that is
indicative of an impedance mismatch between a driver
circuit and a load, as set forth in independent claims
1 and 13. Mooney also fails to describe or suggest
selecting one of a plurality of impedances of the
driver circuit to reduce the impedance mismatch in
response to the signal, as set forth in independent
claims 1 and 13. Furthermore, Mooney fails to teach or
suggest detecting an update signal from a synchronous
circuit or modifying an impedance of the driver circuit
in response to detecting the signal, as set forth in
independent claims 50 and 55.
To determine whether claim 13 is anticipated, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. We note that claim 13 reads in
part as follows:
a synchronous circuit capable of providing a signal
indicative of an impedance mismatch between the driver
circuit and the load; and a controller for selecting
one of the first plurality of impedances to reduce the
impedance mismatch in response to the signal.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007