Appeal No. 1997-1183
Application No. 08/066,362
Micheel et al. (Micheel), "Differential Multiple Logic Using Resonant
Tunneling Diodes", Electronic Technology Laboratory (Wright-Patterson
AFB, OH), pp. 1-7. (Date of publication unknown).
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kameyama in view of (Singh or Micheel). Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahito in view of (Singh or Micheel). Claims 5 and 6
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahito and (Singh or
Micheel) in view of Higgins. Claims 1-6 stand rejected under provisional obviousness-type
double patenting over copending serial number 08/484,194. The examiner has withdrawn
the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and double patenting. The examiner
has also withdrawn the rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first pargraph. (See
answer at page 2.) The examiner has indicated that claim 9 is allowable. (Id.)
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Examiner's
answer (Paper No. 18, mailed July 12, 1996) and the letter (Paper No. 20, mailed
November 1, 1996) for the Examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
appellants’ brief (Paper No.16, filed April 8, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 19, filed Sep.
13, 1996) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007