Appeal No. 1998-1815 Page 5
Application No. 08/684,328
We begin by addressing the rejections for obviousness-type
double patenting.
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
Regarding the obviousness-type double patenting rejection
over claims 5-7, 20-26, and 28-39 of the '282 Application, the
appellant argues, "[c]laims 30-40 and 45-46 ... are directed
to a method of operating a sense amplifier, i.e. reading, and
are not directed to an apparatus which is the subject of the
related application." (Appeal Br. at 48.) Regarding the
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 8, 9, and 14-50
of the '183 Application, the appellant argues, "[c]laims 43-44
are directed to a method of operating a sense amplifier, i.e.
writing, and are not directed to an apparatus,which is the
subject of the related application."" (Id. at 50.) The
examiner collectively responds, "claims-30-40 and 43-46 ...
have been amended and changed since the original restriction
requirement regardless that the claims are directed to a
method, and hence are not consonant with the restriction
requirement made by the examiner ...." (Examiner's Answer at
5.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007