Appeal No. 2002-0140
Application No. 09/435,864
518.
Appellants’ only argument in this regard is that the first
transistor is not connected to an output port of the logic device
516 in Levy, as required by the language of claim 9.
While we understand the difference between the instant
invention and that disclosed by Levy, the instant claim language
does not require a direct connection. The connection of
transistor Q3 in Levy to output port 517 through logic device 516
is not precluded by the instant claim language.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 9, and
of claims 14, 15 and 17, dependent thereon, since appellants do
not separately argue the merits of these claims, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
Finally, we turn to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 through claim 6 and adds the
further limitation that stabilizing the output further comprises
“creating a full keeper, wherein the full keeper holds the
output.”
The examiner’s position is that while Wu does not disclose
such a “full keeper,” APA shows such a full keeper at I106, P108
and N106, connected to an output of a stage for the purpose of
-8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007