Appeal No. 94-3790
Application 08/032,758
Appellant’s brief, reply brief and this reconsideration
request as well as its attached two declarations essentially
in some manner appear to assert that the delay means in
Lofgren’s patent operates in such a manner that the rising
signal edges are not delayed independent of the falling signal
edges and that the falling signal edges are not delayed
independent of the rising signal edges. Appellant’s position
continues to explain that if the delay of Lofgren’s rising
signal edges is increased then the delay of the falling signal
edges is also increased and vice versa. Request at top of
page 2.
This language the examiner did not agree with in the
answer nor did we in our original opinion. We went through
great effort in our original opinion to explain how the
presently claimed invention was not consistent with
appellant’s disclosure and the arguments of the brief
associated with the claim were not consistent with what the
claim said. Appellant’s request for reconsideration and the
declarations appear to ignore the understanding which we and
the examiner went through great length to convey to appellant.
In fact, the declarations completely ignore and make no
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007