Appeal No. 1999-0045
Application 08/688,235
page 2 identified as appellant's admitted prior art, further in view of Wells. For the fifth
stated rejection, the examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 8, 9 and 22 in light of the collective
teachings and showings of Kreifels in view of Fandrich '300. The examiner extends this
rejection in a sixth stated rejection of claims 15, 16 and 23, further in view of Wells. Finally,
in the seventh stated rejection, the examiner rejects claims 16-18 and 24-26 in light of
Kreifels in view of Fandrich '300, further in view of Wells and Fandrich '256.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner, reference is
made to the brief and answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer as amplified here, we
sustain each of the seven stated rejections of all claims on appeal. From our study of
appellants' arguments with respect to the first, second, fifth and sixth stated rejections as
noted below, appellants have not argued against the combinability of the respective
references relied upon by the examiner and appellants have also not argued the respective
features of each of the independent claims in each of these noted rejections. However,
appellants have argued the substance of what they consider a dispositive claimed feature
of each of these stated rejections, that being the disablement of the oscillator circuit when
the operation is complete if a subsequent user command is not being received over the
host bus. Finally, because appellants have not directed any arguments to any of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007