Appeal No. 1997-3436 Page 5
Application No. 08/432,884
With these principles in mind, we consider the appellant’s
argument and the examiner’s reply.
The appellant argues, “the elements of Claims 14 and 40
requiring a local data write driver circuit (Claim 14) or
first and second local data write driver circuits (Claim 40)
are neither disclosed nor suggested by Ohsawa.” (Appeal Br.
at 21.) The examiner replies, “Ohsawa clearly shows the local
data write driver circuits 14-15 because the local data write
driver circuits 14-15 of Ohsawa are ON/OFF controlled in
response to a signal from the signal line WRT and hence
transmit the information on the data input/output lines DQ-DQ
to the bit lines BL-BL (see fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 1-53).”
(Examiner’s Answer at 4.)
“‘[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every
application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what
each claim defines is patentable. [T]he name of the game is
the claim ....’” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich,
The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007