Appeal No. 95-3388
Application 08/242,993
the prior art and we will not sustain the rejection of claims
1 through 25, 33, 34, 36, 37, 40 through 42 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
Turning to the rejection of claims 29, 32, 38 and
39, Appellants argue that Dhong fails to teach or suggest a
"decoding device having an N channel transistor connected in
parallel with a P channel transistor." The Examiner does not
address this issue. Upon a review of Dhong and Kawai, we fail
to find such a teaching. Therefore, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 29, 32, 38 and 39 as well.
Turning to the rejection of claims 26 through 28,
30, 31 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we note that Appellants
have indicated on page 5 of the brief the groupings of the
claims. However, Appellants have not argued claims 26 through
28, 30, 31 and 35 separately. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5) amended
October 22, 1993 states:
For each ground of rejection which
appellant contests and which applies to
more than one claim, it will be presumed
that the rejected claims stand or fall
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007