Appeal No. 2003-0836
Application No. 09/205,086
generated by the RMC which may include an internal clock.
Further, the fact that DRTD discloses that the RMC supports all
the control functions, including refresh (right-column, page 14),
does not preclude having the refresh timing circuit as an
internal part of the RMC.
Based on our findings above, we agree with the Examiner that
the reference DRTD anticipates the claimed subject matter in the
exemplary independent claim 1 for Group I. Accordingly, we
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 2, 15
and 16.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the arguments made above,
Appellants contend that DRTD fails to disclose a refresh timing
circuit with an internal clock generator, a counter, a storage
register or a comparator. Appellants rely on the same arguments
that were provided for Group I and merely list the additional
limitations found in claim 3. These statements are conclusory
rather than substantive. “A general allegation that the claims
define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out
how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from
the references does not comply with the requirements of this
section” 37 CFR § 1.111(2)(b). As discussed above, with respect
to Group I, DRTD does explicitly disclose a refresh timing
Page 7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007