Appeal No. 1997-0706
Application No. 08/040,528
compatible with either said first set of signals or said
second set of signals to configure said chip socket to support
operation of either said first chip type or said second chip
type installed in said chip socket.
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art
references:
Powell 4,319,343 Mar. 09, 1982
Chuang 5,546,563 Aug. 13, 1996
(effectively filed Apr. 22, 1991)
As a result of a new ground of rejection in the Answer,
claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Chuang. 1
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answer, as well 2
as to the Examiner’s comments in the attachment to the
1 Although the Examiner, in the final Office action, had
made a prior art rejection based on Powell, no mention of this
rejection is made in the Examiner’s Answer or in the
attachment to the Advisory action (Paper No. 28, mailed
October 14, 1999), which responds to Appellant’s Reply Brief.
We conclude, therefore, that the rejection based on Powell has
been withdrawn. See Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App.
1957).
2The Appeal Brief (revised) was filed July 25, 1996. In
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated October 17, 1996, a
Reply Brief was filed November 6, 1996 which was entered and
discussed by the Examiner in the Advisory action mailed
October 14, 1999.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007