Appeal No. 95-5032
Application 08/189,276
the known or conventional circuit of Figure 3. It would not normally be expected that the circuit of
Figure 3 be invented with a specific problem so that an invention could be designed to solve the
problem. The natural assumption would be that the circuit of Figure 3 was known to those persons
skilled in this art, and appellants’ invention was directed to solving a known problem with this circuit.
In summary, the facts in this case raise a rebuttable presumption that Figures 3 and 4 are prior art
with respect to appellants, and appellants have not provided the kind of evidence necessary to
overcome this presumption. Therefore, we agree with the examiner that Figures 3 and 4 of this
application may be used as prior art against appellants with respect to these claims. We now
consider the arguments of appellants and the examiner which are directed to the merits of the rejection.
Appellants’ first argument is that the sense amplifiers in their invention are controlled in a manner which
is different from the control of Taguchi. Specifically, appellants argue that “each sense amplifier control
signal being distinct for each sense amplifier associated with a common pair of sub-I/O lines” must be
read as each pair of signals SAE1 and the inverse of SAE1 and SAE2 and the inverse of SAE2 as
disclosed [brief, page 15]. The examiner responds that the quoted language does not require that the
control signals have an inverted relationship or occur at the same time [answer, pages 7-8]. In other
words, the examiner asserts that appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claimed
invention.
Taguchi shows two sense amplifiers in his Figure 6. One sense amplifier receives the signals NS
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007