Appeal No. 2003-1663
Application 09/975,934
that the circuit interprets as digital signals (e.g.,
transistors). Any circuit which performs an AND function is an
"AND circuit," an "AND logical circuit," and an "AND functional
circuit." We conclude that the terms "AND functional circuit" in
the present application and "AND logical circuit" in the '973
patent are semantically equivalent and, thus, are identical in
scope. The rejection of claims 1-15 for same-invention double
patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is sustained.
The examiner's other reasoning (EA4), and appellants'
response thereto (RBr6-9), does not affect the analysis.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for same-
invention double patenting is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)) BOARD OF PATENT
LANCE LEONARD BARRY ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007