Appeal No. 1997-1755
Application 08/163,447
does not cure this fundamental deficiency of Lee [brief, pages
4 to 5]. Appellants also dismiss the Examiner’s assertion
that the claimed invention merely involves the “rearranging
of parts” shown by the applied references [brief, pages 5 to
6]. We agree with Appellants. Whereas, the claimed invention
differs from the admitted prior art only in the incorporation
of a “fixed impedance means ..., said impedance means being
physically located adjacent to said clock input pin and
between said clock input pin and said semiconductor devices”
(Claim 1), none of the references applied by the Examiner in
the final rejection, taken singly or in combination, supplies
this feature. Lee is directed to adjusting the output signals
of a semiconductor device so that all the output signals are
of the same form. A variable impedance is used to adjust the
skew rate of the signals to achieve the same form. A fixed
impedance would not achieve the result Lee is designed for.
Lin too adds nothing to meet the above claimed feature. The
mere presence of a resistor in a semiconductor assembly in Lin
does not teach the placement of such a resistor in a specific
claimed manner. Likewise, Irwin and/or Webster also fail to
disclose the above claimed feature. Thus, we conclude that
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007