Appeal No. 95-5032
Application 08/189,276
and /N while the other sense amplifier receives the signals /N and N . Thus, four distinct andLE S LE
recognizable control signals are used in the Taguchi memory device. The claims recite that each of the
sense amplifier control signals is distinct for each sense amplifier. We agree with the examiner that the
four control signals of Taguchi meet this claim language since each of the control signals is distinct from
the others. Appellants’ interpretation of the claim language is stricter than the language requires.
Appellants argue next that the independent claims require that the pair of sub-I/O lines be
connected to a selected bit line pair “before activation of the plurality of sense amplifiers” [brief, page
16]. According to appellants, neither Taguchi nor Koyanagi nor Itoh suggests this relationship. The
examiner responds that this limitation is met by the admitted prior art of Figure 3. Appellants again
argue that Figure 3 of this application is not prior art. Since we determined above that Figure 3 is
available as prior art, this particular argument of appellants is not persuasive.
Claims 12 and 17 were separately rejected using the additional teachings of Koyanagi or Itoh.
Appellants argue that these claims “are patentable over the applied references for reasons similar to
those for claims 1-3, 9-11 and 13-16" [brief, pages 17-18]. Since we have previously determined that
appellants’ arguments with respect to these claims are not persuasive of error by the examiner, we find
no error in the rejection of claims 12 and 17.
Appellants separately argue claims 4-8 and 18-22 as reciting means for generating the timing
signal which “means” has not been appropriately considered by the examiner under the last paragraph
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007