Appeal No. 2003-0340
Application No. 09/096,403
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The examiner has indicated how he reads the claimed
invention on the disclosure of Pasternak [answer, pages 4-5].
With respect to independent claim 33, appellants argue that the
devices labeled CA in Figure 3 of Pasternak are the bridge
circuits shown in Figure 4 of Pasternak so that these bridge
circuits cannot possibly be the receiving circuits within the
fan-out device as recited in claim 33. Appellants also argue
that claim 33 requires a summing circuit for each port which
distinguishes from Pasternak because Pasternak only has one
summing circuit in a three port device [brief, pages 3-4].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 33 or of claims 36 and 371 which depend
therefrom for essentially the reasons argued by appellants in the
briefs. The examiner has failed to properly address appellants’
argument that the claimed fan-out device must have a summing
circuit associated with each port of the device. As noted by
appellants, the fan-out device of Pasternak has only one summing
1 Claim 37 was improperly included in this rejection since
it depends from claim 34 which is not subject to this rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007