Appeal No. 1998-3409
Application No. 08/525,152
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Mitsuhashi 5,243,474 Sep. 07, 1993
Park et al. (Park) 5,448,367 Sep. 05, 1995
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Park
in view of Mitsuhashi.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 17, mailed Apr. 29, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 16, filed Feb., 17, 1997) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant argues that the reference to Park does not teach the use of both a shift
command signal and delay data. (See brief at page 11.) Appellant further argues
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007