Appeal No. 1997-2292
Application No. 08/483,839
subject invention, to construct operative embodiments of the
invention . . .” without undue experimentation (Reply Brief, 2
page 7).
Turning lastly to the prior art rejections of claims 1
and 2, we agree with the examiner (Answer, page 6) that both
Lefebvre and Geadah have “‘write counter’ means 117 which
count clock pulses from CLOCK A and then send this count
information to a comparator where an ‘empty’ or ‘full’
indication is given.” On the other hand, we agree with
appellant (Reply Brief, pages 6 and 7) that “the Examiner has
not identified any specific portions of the circuits disclosed
in the applied references which provide an output signal
having a given form only when the input pulse train has a pre-
determined number of clocks, or which deliver a program
instruction only when the output signal from the clock-
numbered detecting circuit has a given form while a signal
changes from a first state to a second state.” In the absence
of such an identification by the examiner, the 35 U.S.C. § 102
2In view of the reversal of this rejection, we will not
address the merits of appellant’s declaration (paper number
9).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007