Ex parte HARDEE - Page 9




          Appeal No. 1998-1657                                       Page 9           
          Application No. 08/674,282                                                  


          of claims 5-7, 20-26, and 28-39 over claims 13-46 of the '328               
          Application.                                                                


             Obviousness-Type Double Patenting over the '183 Application              
               The examiner fails to show a loss of consonance between                
          claims 8, 9, and 14-50 of the '183 Application and the claims               
          of the instant application.  In the restriction requirement of              
          the '312 Application, he explained that the third group                     
          comprised "[c]laims 8-9, drawn to a sense amplifier utilizing               
          a data write driver circuit for write operation ...."  (Paper               
          No. 3 at 2.)  It is uncontested that these are the claims in                
          the '183 Application.  (Appeal Br. at 40.)                                  


               Although claims 5-7, 20-26, and 28-39 have been amended                
          since the restriction requirement, the examiner fails to                    
          allege, let alone show, that the claims have been altered to                
          recite a sense amplifier utilizing a data write driver circuit              
          for a write operation.  To the contrary, the claims omit a                  
          data write driver circuit.  The claims further omit a write                 
          operation.  Because claims 5-7, 20-26, and 28-39 recite                     
          neither a data write driver circuit nor a write operation, we               







Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007