Ex Parte Jackson et al - Page 11

              Appeal  2007-2532                                                                    
              Application 10/608,791                                                               
              38. Jackson argues that Krieger does not mention transitions between                 
              detectable memory states arising from changes in chemical bonds, and that            
              changes in resistivity do not imply changes in chemical bonds or organic-            
              polymer doping.  (Br. at 12–13.)                                                     
              39. Moreover, according to Jackson, Krieger does not mention or suggest              
              that the state change is reversible.  (Br. at 13.)                                   
              40. Jackson argues that claims 2–32 all depend ultimately from claim 1,              
              and that the rejection must fail for them as well.  (Br. at 13.)                     
              41. Jackson argues that "specific rejections of many of the dependent                
              claims are completely unsupported by the cited references."  (Br. at 13.)            
              42. Jackson, however, argues only the rejection of claim 4 specifically.             
              43. According to Jackson, "[n]either Figure 5 of Krieger nor any text                
              referencing Figure 5 in Krieger teach[es], disclose[s], mention[s], or               
              suggest[s] a memory cell in which organic-polymer dopants are active in one          
              memory state and inactive in another memory state."  (Br. at 13.)                    
              C. Discussion                                                                        
                    Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368,              
              1374, 58 USPQ2d 1508, 1512 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("A claim is anticipated if              
              each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single        
              prior art reference." (Citation omitted.))  During prosecution, “the PTO             
              applies to the verbiage of the claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the         
              words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of                  
              ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way         
              of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description          
              contained in the applicant’s specification.”  In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,           



                                                11                                                 

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013