Appeal No. 1998-1815 Page 7
Application No. 08/684,328
The examiner fails to show a loss of consonance between
claims 5-7, 20-26, and 28-39 of the '282 Application and
claims 30-40 and 45-46 of the instant application. In U.S.
Patent Application 07/976,312 ('312 Application), the
grandparent application of the instant application, the
examiner issued a restriction requirement dividing the initial
claims into five groups. (Paper No. 3 at 2.) He explained
that the second group comprised "[c]laims 5-7, drawn to a
sense amplifier utilizing a column read amplifier for read
operation" and that the fifth group comprised "[c]laim 13,
drawn to a method of operating a sense amplifier utilizing a
read amplifier and data write circuitry ...." (Id.) It is
uncontested that the appellant elected to prosecute claims 5-7
and claims similar thereto in the '282 Application and its
parent application and to prosecute claim 13 and claims
similar thereto in the instant application and its parent
application. (Appeal Br. at 47.)
Although claims 30-40 and 45-46 have been added to the
instant application and amended since the restriction
requirement, the examiner fails to allege, let alone show,
that the claims have been altered to recite a sense amplifier
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007