Appeal 2007-0157
Application 10/984,584
OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING
Appellant has elected not to appeal this rejection by the Examiner
therefore, we DISMISS Appellant’s appeal with respect to claims 1-30 with
respect to the obvious-type double patenting. 1
35 U.S.C. § 103
Initially, we note that Appellant has already obtained a patent on more
narrowly claimed subject matter with specific fields of use recited in the
preambles in the above Song patent. Here, Appellant seeks broader claimed
subject matter reciting “a buffer,” “a method,” and “a system.”
Appellant’s main contention is that the Examiner did not “identify
sufficient prior art evidence of a rationale for combining Hsu and Hodges”
(Br. 16). We disagree with Appellant and find that the requisite showing by
the Examiner is commensurate with the broad scope of Appellant’s instant
claim language.
Appellant argues that “Hodges does not mention long-bus lines or large-
capacitance downstream circuitry” as advanced by the Examiner as a
motivation for combining the teachings of Hsu and Hodges. We do not find
it a problem that the express words the Examiner used are not found in the
text of the reference. The Examiner further discusses the rationale for the
combination at page 7 of the Answer. We find no error in the Examiner’s
reasoning for the combination or motivation.
1 Here, we additionally question why the Examiner indicated claims
allowable and also rejects all the claims based upon obvious-type double
patenting. We leave it to the Examiner to clarify the status of the claims.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013