Appeal No. 2004-0442
Application No. 09/222,953
Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12 through 15, 18, and 19 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ono in view
of Ito.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 23,
mailed March 19, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper
No. 22, filed January 8, 2003) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 24,
filed May 19, 2003) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 11,
17, and 20 and also the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 3, 5,
7, 8, 10, 12 through 16, 18, 19, and 21.
Each of independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 17 recites, in
pertinent part, a register. The examiner (Answer, page 4) points
to element 25 in Ono's Figure 6A as satisfying the claimed
register. However, Ono discloses (column 3, lines 31-32) that
element 25 is a latch circuit. The examiner, recognizing that
Ono does not explicitly disclose a register, asserts (Answer,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007