Appeal No. 95-2665
Application 07/999,609
unconvinced that the artisan would have done so from the
rationales expressed by the examiner and/or the teachings of
each of these references.
This indirectly relates to the argued position from
appellant that a three transistor structure is disclosed. It may
be disputed as to the detail in which this feature is indirectly
recited in each independent claim on appeal, yet Guterman does
set forth an equivalent three transistor structure in Figures 1-
2. This is the only reference from which we can clearly discern
that a three transistor structure is taught and/or suggested.
The other references appear to teach either one and/or two
transistors. This is critical to an understanding of the overall
structure of each independent claim on appeal as a starting point
because the simultaneity of the accessibility of each cell in the
functional wherein clause is based upon the substantial
simultaneous energization of the claimed first and second traces.
As dis-closed, this activates the middle transistor in
representative Figure 5 of the disclosed invention. This we are
urged would be done effectively in Guterman, but we remain
unconvinced of the simultaneity in that reference alone even as
modified by the single and/or double transistor teachings in
Hasunuma, Komori and Ma.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007