Appeal No. 1996-2578
Application 08/216,807
merits of the
positions of Appellant [brief, pages 13 to 14 and 18 to 20 and
reply brief, pages 8 to 9] and the Examiner [answer, pages 2
to 4]. We agree with the Examiner. Winebarger teaches the
selective charging and discharging of the charge storage
elements (i.e., the capacitors) in response to the input
signal at node 12. The output signal POR in Winebarger is
delayed by a predetermined amount of time as represented by 82
in figure 3. Thus, as claimed in claim 1, Winebarger shows
all the elements.
Therefore, we sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1
over Winebarger. We next consider the other independent claim
14. As pointed out above, this claim is broader than claim 1
and hence anticipated by Winebarger for the same reasons as
claim 1. We sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 14
over Winebarger.
Regarding the dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 9 and 12, we
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007