Appeal No. 1999-0045
Application 08/688,235
In light of this we are unpersuaded of appellants' arguments as to this rejection at
pages 8-10 of the brief. Appellants' statement at the middle of page 9 of the brief that “the
admitted prior art will disable an oscillator circuit if a subsequent user command is being
received over a host bus” is clearly misplaced or plainly wrong. The examiner emphasizes
this at the top of page 17 of the answer. In any event, we read the functional operation of
the admitted prior art discussed at specification page 2, lines 2-9 as relied upon by the
examiner in the same manner as we read the specific teachings of Fandrich '300 in the
first stated rejection.
We also do not agree with appellants' views expressed at pages 10 and 11 of the
brief relative to the fifth stated rejection. These amount to only general arguments of
patentability basically bottomed upon broad assertions not specifically developed. The
examiner in the statement of the rejection according to this fifth stated rejection admits that
Kreifels does not teach the disablement feature of representative claim 1 on appeal. Our
discussion earlier in this opinion indicates our disagreement with appellants' view that
Fandrich '300 does not teach the corresponding feature at the end of representative claim
1 on appeal argued in a general manner here.
Finally, we address appellants' arguments directed to the sixth stated rejection at
pages 11-13 and find ourselves in agreement with the examiner's view as to the
unpatentability of independent claim 15, its dependent claim 16 and dependent claim 23.
The examiner's rejection relies upon Kreifels in view of Fandrich '300, further in view of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007