Ex parte GLASS - Page 6

                 Appeal No. 1998-2879                                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 08/474,856                                                                                                             

                          Appellant’s argument (Brief, pages 10 and 11) concerning                                                                      
                 the buffering of control signals in the system of claim 18 is                                                                          
                 without merit since this claim does not recite such signals.                                                                           
                 When this claim is given its broadest reasonable                                                                                       
                 interpretation,  we find that the claimed buffered “signals”1                                                                                                           
                 is broad enough to read on the data signals that are buffered                                                                          
                 in Matsuo.  For this reason, we will sustain the 35 U.S.C.                                                                            
                 102/35 U.S.C.  103 rejections of claim 18.  We will likewise                                                                          
                 sustain the 35 U.S.C.  102/35 U.S.C.  103 rejections of                                                                              
                 claim 19 because appellant has not presented separate                                                                                  
                 patentability arguments for this claim.                                                                                                
                          The 35 U.S.C.  103 rejection of claims 2, 9 and 20 based                                                                     
                 upon the combined teachings of Matsuo and Redwine is reversed                                                                          
                 because Matsuo is silent concerning a pull-up resistor that is                                                                         
                 operable in connection with the buffer circuit, and the                                                                                
                 “elements 43 and 44” in Redwine are not pull-up resistors                                                                              
                 (Answer, page 6).                                                                                                                      

                          1During ex parte examination of an application, claims are                                                                    
                 given their broadest reasonable interpretation, and                                                                                    
                 limitations appearing in the specification are not to be read                                                                          
                 into the claims.  In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1,                                                                          
                 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).                                                                                                                    

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007