Appeal No. 95-1527
Application No. 07/862,066
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over admitted prior art in view of Lam.
The admitted prior art is illustrated in Figure 7 and
described on pages 1-3 of Appellant’s Specification.
According to the examiner, it would have been obvious to
modify the admitted prior art by incorporating the recited
presetting means in order to provide high access speed as
taught by Lam. Examiner’s Answer at 3. Appellants argue that
Lam fails to deal with the problem of increased capacitance as
a result of the selection arrangement and also fails to
suggest any means of solving that problem. Appeal Brief at 4-
5.
We agree with the examiner.
The only difference between the admitted prior art and
the claimed invention is that the claimed invention adds a
presetting means. Specification at 7, lines 3-5. The
Specification discloses a pre-charging transistor as a
presetting means. Specification at 9, lines 17-21.
Lam also discloses a pre-charging transistor as a
presetting means in a read-out circuit for use with a
semiconductor memory device. Column 5, line 65, through
column 6, line 9. Lam suggests such an arrangement in order
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007