Appeal No. 96-3244
Application No. 08/238,192
asserted state to said negated state while said reset signal
remains in said asserted state, said first control signal is
negated to no longer force any of said output signals [to] a
negated state; and (iii) when said reset signal transitions
from said asserted state to said negated state while said mode
signal is in said asserted state, said second control signal
is asserted to cause said input/output signals to remain
tristated until said reset signal is again received in said
asserted state.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Langone et al. (Langone) 4,743,842 May
10, 1988
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 through 9, 11 and 13 stand rejected
under the first and second paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for
lack of enablement and for being indefinite.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 through 9, 11 and 13 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Langone.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answers for the2
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
All of the rejections are reversed.
A common thread woven throughout the rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 112 is the examiner’s insistence that appellants
2Appellants’ first and second Reply Briefs (paper numbers
42 and 44) were not entered by the examiner (paper numbers 43
and 45).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007