Appeal No. 2002-0140
Application No. 09/435,864
anticipated by Wu. Claims 9, 14, 15 and 17 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Levy. Claim 7 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wu in view of
APA.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), a reference must disclose,
explicitly or implicitly, every limitation of the claimed
invention. Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34
USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 988 (1995).
With regard to claims 1 and 2, the examiner applies Wu as
follows: In Figure 1 of the reference, the first stage is
considered to be logic gates 10 and 11, with the first clock
signal at phase 34. The second clock signal is considered to be
phase 3. Since both of these clock signals are received in the
first stage, the claim limitations of “receiving a first clock
signal in a first stage” and “receiving a second clock signal in
the first stage” are met. Moreover, since the output of the
first stage, e.g., at point V3, is determined by application of
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007