Appeal No. 2001-1955
Application 08/989,917
As expressed at page 9 of the principal brief on appeal, the
rejection of claim 22 relies on similar arguments as with respect
to claims 19 and 21. Therefore, we have sustained the rejection
of claim 22 as well.
Turning lastly to the rejection of claims 2-10 and 24-29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over McKinney alone, we
sustain only the rejection of claims 2 and 6-10 as well as 24-29.
We reverse the rejection of claims 3 and 4 since we are
persuaded by the substantive arguments presented by appellants at
page 10 of the principal brief on appeal as to these claims. The
mere functional equivalence argued by the examiner at page 8 of
the answer relating to the delay buffer 10, 20 and 80 of
McKinney's figure does not fully address the requirement of
claims 3 and 4 as noted at the top of page 10 of the principal
brief on appeal that a delay block having two inputs is required.
McKinney's delay buffers 10-20 and 80 do not have such a dual
input. Similarly, McKinney does not teach or show the use of
inverted buffers as recited in claim 3. Because claim 5 depends
from claim 3, we must reverse the rejection of claims 3-5.
No arguments are presented for our consideration as to
claims 2, 6-8 and 10. As to claim 9, appellants' mere
recognition or repetition of what the examiner has said is not
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007