Appeal No. 1998-3035
Application No. 08/580,036
1971). However, the burden is initially upon the Examiner to
establish a reasonable basis for questioning the adequacy of
the disclosure. In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212
USPQ 561, 563 (CCPA 1982); In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504,
190 USPQ 214, 219 (CCPA 1976); and In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d
676, 677, 185 USPQ 152, 153 (CCPA 1975).
The Examiner has questioned the sufficiency of
Appellant’s disclosure in describing the manner of operation
of the circuit arrangement illustrated, for example, in
Appellants' Figure 3 which would result in the production of
complementary out-of-phase clock signals as claimed. In the
Examiner’s analysis (Answer, page 4) of the operation of
Appellants’ described circuit, the complementary pulses from
circuits 40 and 70, instead of producing the claimed
complementary clock signals, will, in fact, cancel each other
out.
After reviewing the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, it is apparent that we have before us, in essence,
conflicting interpretations of the operation of Appellants’
disclosed clock circuitry. It is our view, however, that the
Examiner’s analysis at least reaches the threshold of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007