Appeal No. 94-3790
Application 08/032,758
delay for or associated with the second
type or falling edges. Different or
separate circuit elements are not
necessarily recited in the claim for the
disclosed two different delays as asserted
at page 3 of the brief in the Summary of
the Invention thereof. Essentially, only
one delay is recited in claim 21. That is,
the first type signal edges are delayed for
“a time interval” at the end of the above
quoted delay means clause. There is no
corresponding delay recited for the second
or falling type signal edges.
The claimed
first type and second type signal edges
(that is, for example, rising and falling
edges, respectively) are not recited in
claim 21 to be separately controlled.
This language built upon the views expressed by the
examiner in the answer as to what the examiner considers the
claim 21 to say and not to say. More specifically, the
assertion made at the top of page 2 of the request for
reconsideration,
being the same as originally asserted in the brief and reply
brief, is that in Lofgren’s delay the rising signal edges are
not delayed independent of the falling signal edges and the
falling signal edges are not delayed independent of the rising
signal edges. We endeavored to explain in our original
opinion that such a requirement must be set forth with claims
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007