Appeal No. 2003-0882 Page 8
Application No. 09/911,198
language disputed by appellants. Because the examiner has failed
to establish that Q5-Q8 function as an inverter when Q10 goes LOW,
we therefore find that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of anticipation of independent claim 1.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-5 dependent
therefrom, is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 6-11 and 17-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Jung. Both
independent claims 6 and 17 contain language similar to the
language found in independent claim 1. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 6-11 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007