Appeal No. 1999-1631
Application 08/733,586
could be drawn through the gates of Q2, Q4" (Answer at 4).
Appellant's reply brief does not address this argument. Nor
has appellant explained how the term "laterally aligned" is to
be construed and why. Instead, the Brief simply asserts (at
5), without supporting analysis, that "[n]o such feature is
taught by Harari." Consequently, appellant has not met his
burden of persuasion with respect to this limitation. 7
Nor does appellant deny that the reference satisfies the
remaining limitations of claim 1, i.e., the requirement for a
pair of bitlines extending in a vertical direction and a pair
of pass transistors connected between the bitlines and the
cross-coupled inverters. Consequently, we are affirming the §
102 rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claim 4 specifies that "each gate of each p-
channel transistor is offset from the gate of the n-channel
transistor in the same inverter by the same distance in the
horizontal direction." As appellant has not explained why
this limitation is not satisfied when the horizontal direction
7We note in passing that in American Permahedge Inc. v.
Barcana Inc., 103 F.3d 1441, 1444, 41 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed.
Cir. 1997), not mentioned by the examiner or appellant, the
court held that the ordinary meaning of the term "laterally
extending" is to extend sideways irrespective of the angle.
- 16 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007