Appeal No. 1997-3437
Application 08/315,740
1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686
(Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223
USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The Examiner contends [answer, page 4] that “[i]t is well
known ... that multiple output circuits, which require the
same input signals, can be driven by either one circuit or a
circuit for each respective output circuit.” The Examiner
offers little explanation on the details of such modification.
Besides, we noted above that Yamanaka does not disclose all
the elements of claim 24. Since Yamanaka fails to meet the
limitations of claim 24, Yamanaka cannot be modified to reject
the dependent claim 29 without some additional evidence to
cure the deficiency noted in meeting claim 24. The Examiner
has not provided any additional evidence. Therefore, we do
not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 29 over
Yamanaka.
In conclusion, we reverse the Examiner’s final rejection
of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We also
reverse the final rejection of claims 24 to 25, 28, 32 and 34
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007