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). 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007