Appeal No. 2000-1361 Page 3
Application No. 08/933,880
to the output register when an output value of the
combinatorial block is present according to the value of the
output of the input register.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
Examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Kontani et al. (Kontani) 5,195,049 Mar. 16, 1993
Richardson 5,262,973 Nov. 16, 1993
Claims 1, 4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Richardson.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Richardson in view of
Kontani.
Claims 3 and 6 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the Examiner and Appellant regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 13, mailed
September 1, 1999) for the Examiner’s complete reasoning and to
the appeal brief (Paper No. 12, filed August 18, 1999) for
Appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The rejection of claims 3 and 6 through 8 under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being indefinite has not been
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007