Appeal No. 1997-1183
Application No. 08/066,362
folding circuits.” (See brief at page 9.) The Examiner relies on Kawahito to teach two
resonant tunneling multi-level folding circuits with current sources and then substitutes
Higgins' teaching of a voltage divider for the current sources. (See answer at pages 4-
5.) The Examiner has not addressed the specific language of claim 5 and the specific
interconnection of the voltage divider, nor has the Examiner provided more than a mere
conclusion why one skilled in the art would have been motivated to make such a
modification to the prior art teachings. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim
5 nor its dependent claim 6.
OBVIOUS DOUBLE PATENTING
The application listed in the rejection of claims 1-6 under provisional obviousness-
type double patenting has been abandoned, therefore this issue is MOOT.
REJECTION UNDER 37 CFR 1.196(b)
The Examiner stated in the final rejection that claims 7 and 8 were similar to claims
4-6 and that a similar rejection applied to claims 7 and 8. In the answer the Examiner
withdrew a rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph and rejections of
claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and obvious type double patenting without stating a
reason for doing so. (See answer, page 2). However, we agree with the Examiner’s
previous statement that claims 4 and 7 are similar. Therefore, we enter a rejection to
claims 7 and 8 under 37 CFR 1.196(b).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007