Appeal No. 1996-2578
Application 08/216,807
The Examiner has rejected these claims as being
anticipated by Shen under 35 U.S.C. § 102. There are three
independent claims, namely, 1, 4 and 14. We first consider
claim 1. After considering the positions of Appellant [brief,
pages 14, 16 to 18 and reply brief, pages 2 to 7] and Examiner
[answer, pages 2 to 3], we agree with the Examiner. Shen does
show plural storage elements c1, c2 , c3 and c4 and they are
being charged and discharged at selective times in response to
a change at the input means such as node A. Shen also shows a
delay means 14 together with an amplifier 16. This delay
means is responsive to the charge level of the storage element
c4 which in turn is indicative of a predetermined time delay.
Therefore, we sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1.
The other independent
claim, 14, contains similar limitations and in fact is broader
than claim 1 because, for example, it only calls for “a
plurality of charge storing elements” (claim 14, lines 1 and
2) whereas claim 1 further calls for these storing elements
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007