Appeal No. 1996-2578
Application 08/216,807
sound rule that an issue raised below which is not argued in
this court, even if it has been properly brought here by
reason of appeal is regarded as abandoned and will not be
considered. It is our function as a court to decide disputed
issues, not to create them.”). Therefore, we sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 2, 3, 7, 9 and 12 over Shen.
Regarding independent claim 4, we again evaluate the
respective positions of Appellant [brief, pages 14 to 17 and
reply brief, pages 2 to 7] and the Examiner [answer, pages 2
to 3]. We find no evidence offered by the Examiner which
meets the limitation “generating a first output signal when
... , and generating a delayed second output signal according
to the number of first output signals” (claim 4, lines 8 to
11). We, therefore, do not sustain the anticipation rejection
of claim 4 and its dependent claims 5 and 6 over Shen.
Rejection of claims 1 to 7, 9, 12 and 14 over Winebarger
The Examiner has rejected these claims as being
anticipated by Winebarger under 35 U.S.C. § 102. We first
take up the independent claim 1. We have considered the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007