Appeal No. 97-2630
Application 08/186,050
The examiner’s answer maintained only the rejection of
claims 1, 13 and 15. See examiner’s answer at page 6. While
in all likelihood the examiner did not intend to withdraw the
rejection of claims 7, 8, 10-13, 15, 16, and 19, he did not
include them in the statement of rejection within the
examiner’s answer. We recognize that the appellant has
grouped claims 10-12 with claim 1 and claims 7, 8, 16 and 19
with claim 15, but grouping of claims does not operate to
cancel claims. The examiner still must maintain those
rejections which he deems proper to apply. The rejection of
claims is too important to be left to likelihoods and
probabilities. Doing that would promote uncertainty and also
trivialize the seriousness of statements made on the written
record.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 7, 8, 10-12, 16 and
19 is considered as withdrawn and the only claims rejected are
claims 1, 13 and 15.
The Invention
The invention is directed to an integrated circuit.
Claim 13 depends from claim 1. Independent claims 1 and 15
are reproduced below:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007