Appeal No. 96-3211
Application 07/928,717
11. Applicant challenges the rejection of claims 2-4 for
failing to account for the Applicant's specific circuit
components. (Paper 33 at 17.) The relevant circuits are
discussed at pages 9-12 of the specification. The examiner
relies on Niitsu and skill in the art to teach these structures,
but does not explain how Niitsu teaches precisely the same
structures or their equivalents. We cannot sustain the rejection
of claims 2-4 without a showing that Niitsu (in combination with
the other references) teaches these elements.
12. Claims 5, 6, and 9 require gating means. The examiner
has not clearly identified a structure in Niitsu or the other
references that teaches this limitation. To the extent that the
examiner is suggesting that gating means are inherent in the
combination (Paper 34 at 17-19), we agree with Applicant that
this is not a proper application of inherency. In re Rijckaert,
9 F.3d 1531, 1534, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1957 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
13. Regarding claims 13-20, Applicant again argues that the
combination does not teach or suggest his particular circuits.
(Paper 37 at 11.) Again, the examiner apparently relies on
inherency to teach these elements. (Paper 34 at 18-19.) Niitsu,
by itself or in combination with Folsom and Suzuki, lacks
sufficient detail to determine whether its structures are the
same as or equivalent to the structures Applicant discloses in
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007