Appeal No. 1999-2568
Application No. 08/640,096
respectively. (Orig. App., p.7, l.24-26) Since
these driver waveforms and the characteristics of
these driver waveforms are identified in detail in
the specification, Applicants asserts [sic] that a
person having ordinary skill in the art would
readily be able to fabricate drivers satisfying the
characteristics of these driver wave forms. Thus,
as filed, the specification complies with the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 since the specification
and drawings, coupled with information known in the
art, enables any person skilled in the art to make
and use the subject matter defined by claims 2
through 6 without undue experimentation.
We agree. The lack of enablement rejection of claims 2
through 6 is reversed in light of appellants’ convincing
arguments that an undue amount of experimentation is not
needed to arrive at circuitry for drivers 6 and 7 that will
produce the disclosed and claimed signals and voltages.
In the anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 3, 7
and 8, the examiner is of the opinion (answer, page 4) that
Belluche discloses “a wired-or bus (11) the same as the
instant invention reducing a wire-or glitch so that the bus
(11) can be sampled after a single trip propagation,” and “[a]
plurality of wired OR or open-collector drivers (10) . . .
disposed along a bus.” The examiner’s contentions to the
contrary notwithstanding, Belluche is completely silent as to
“a single trip propagation,” and the gates 10-1 through 10-N
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007