Appeal No. 1997-1183
Application No. 08/066,362
presently claimed invention including the at least one device which exhibits negative
differential resistance to calculate the sum.” (See brief at page 8.) This argument is
directed to the individual reference rather than the combination of the teachings.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. Since the Kawahito disclosure is similar to the
disclosure of Kameyama, we will not repeat the above discussion. Therefore, we will
sustain the rejection of claim 1 over the combination of Kawahito with (Singh or Micheel).
With respect to claims 2, 3 and 4, appellants have not presented separate
arguments beyond paraphrasing the language of the claims. (See brief at page 9.) These
arguments are not persuasive. Further, we note that the Examiner has directed appellants
to Figure 5 of Kameyama to show the structure of the addition by direct connection and
converter circuits to provide the output in the proper format and base (see answer at page
3) and to Figures 4 and 5 of Kawahito to show the structure of the addition by direct
connection and converter circuits to provide the output in the proper format and base.
(See answer at page 4.) Appellants have not rebutted this prima facie case of
obviousness. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claims 2-4.
CLAIMS 5 AND 6
With respect to the rejection of claims 5 and 6, appellants argue that the prior art
does not teach the “specific connection between two resonant tunneling multi-level
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007