Appeal No. 1997-1351
Application 08/127,924
Appellants argue that this recitation of these claims
is definite without specifically including control lines
(Br6).
The Examiner does not respond to this argument.
However, we would not find any argument persuasive. The
claims are definite without reciting control lines. The
claims are broad. This form of claiming by adding a
limitation at a time in the dependent claims is so common
that we fail to see how it can be questioned. The rejection
of claims 24 and 40 is reversed.
Claim 25
The Examiner considers this claim indefinite because it
does not provide the particulars of how the tristate-HCMOS
drivers are integrated with the rest of the system at the
circuit level (FR3).
Appellants argue that claim 25 is definite without
including these particulars (Br6).
The Examiner does not respond to this argument.
However, again, we would not find any argument persuasive.
It is not necessary to recite detailed connections. The
rejection of claim 25 is reversed.
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007