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, wePage: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007