Appeal No. 2001-0740
Application 09/054,415
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 15-18 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Mizuide.
Claims 1-4 and 9-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Wang.
Claims 2-4, 6, 9, 11, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mizuide.
Claims 5-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 13) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 23)
(pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the examiner's
rejection, and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 22) (pages referred
to as "Br__") for a statement of appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
The examiner states that "[w]hen or how the 'slew
is expected ... irrespective of actual signal level' or 'activity
is expected' is determined are deemed critical or essential to
the practice of the invention" (EA3), but are not enabled by the
disclosure. It is stated that there is no indication how or what
provides the complementary control signals "p" and "pb" in the
control circuit in Fig. 9 so it is possible that the signals
could be provided at inappropriate times (EA4).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007