Appeal No. 1999-1993
Application No. 08/385,702
begins to change transmissivity and when it reaches its maximum, respectively. (See
Hiroki Fig. 2.) We agree with the examiner that the two threshold voltages were known
with respect to the varied transmittivity, but from our review of Hiroki, Hiroki does not teach
the use of two different and opposite voltages as the select signals. The examiner relies
merely on Fig. 2 to teach the two voltages V and V . We do not agree with the examinerb d
that the mere existence of the two thresholds teaches or fairly suggests the use of these
thresholds as the select voltages. (See brief at page 6.)
Appellants argue that the Hartmann reference “relates to a much different
technology and provides no teaching or suggestion whatsoever regarding the claimed
invention.” (See brief at page 5.) We disagree with appellants. Appellants merely parrot
the language and point to the specification at pages 8, 9, and 41 which restate the claimed
invention. This argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that the signals of Hartmann are bipolar and composed of two
sub-signals. (See brief at page 5.) We agree with appellants. Appellants argue that in
the claimed invention the select signals are not equal and opposite. (See brief at page 6.)
We agree with appellants. From our review of Hartmann, Hartmann teaches that the select
voltages are +/- (V + ĪV) where ĪV is Vsel dmaxwhere claim 1 requires that
the two select voltage is +/- ( Vth low-ĪV) (where ĪV > 0) and -/+(V th high+ ĪV) (where ĪV >
0). Here, one voltage is plus ĪV and the other select voltage is minus ĪV. Therefore
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007