Appeal No. 1997-4034
Application No. 08/260,269
above for claim 1. Accordingly, we will affirm the
anticipation rejection of claim 11 for substantially the same
reasons set forth above regarding the rejection of claim 1.
As to claims 3 through 9, although the examiner added
Yamada (for rejecting claims 3 through 6) and further added
Shimizu (for rejecting claims 7 through 9), appellant (Brief,
page 10) rests all arguments upon the alleged deficiency of
Yoshioka. Since we have found Yoshioka to contain the
contested limitation, and appellant provides no arguments
concerning the applicability of the additional references, we
will affirm the obviousness rejections of claims 3 through 9.
On the other hand, as to claims 10 and 12, we agree with
appellant (Reply Brief, page 4) that the combination of
Yoshioka and Kanota would not yield a read control signal
generated only from a timing signal. Yoshioka generates the
read control signal from the read clock pulses and the read
start signal (which is synchronized with the timing signal).
Kanota generates a read control signal from a clock signal
from reference oscillator 7, which is different from the
claimed timing signal. Accordingly, neither reference
suggests generating the read control signal from only the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007