Appeal No. 1997-0278
Application No. 08/367,917
The Examiner adds Yamamoto as a teaching of the well known use of
incorporating low voltage integrated circuits into a (micro)computer and the inherent
circuitry associated with the microcomptuter. (See answer at page 5.) Appellants argue
that Yamamoto teaches a one-chip microcomputer with an EEPROM, and that Yamamoto
teaches "the use of an elaborate array of substrate patterns with various resistances that
are devised to pass the higher voltages required by the EPROM to ground.” (See brief at
pages 8-9.) Appellants argue that “it would not have been obvious to use the integrated
circuit of Sato to perform such a function, i.e. pass the higher voltages required by the
EPROM to ground. Additionally, as stated above in the discussion of Sato, Appellants
further submit that it is not obvious whether or not the integrated circuit of Sato could even
withstand such a voltage.” ( Id. at 9.) We agree with appellants and further agree that
Yamamoto does not teach or suggest those features or motivations lacking in Sato.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 14.
Appellants argue that the combination of Sato, Lee and Yamamoto does not teach
or suggest the low voltage switch or computer as set forth in claims 11, 12 and 14. We
agree with appellants. As discussed above Yamamoto or Lee does not teach
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007