Appeal No. 2004-0940
Application No. 09/908,146
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings
are deemed to support the asserted conclusion. See In re Lee,
277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Our review of Ooishi reveals that indeed there is a
description (column 6, line 2) of a signal SR which initiates a
self-refresh operation, but we find no indication that this
signal is generated after, let alone in response to, the
generation of an end of transfer command as required by the
appealed independent claims. While Ooishi discusses (column 5,
line 66) a signal APC (automatic precharge operation) which is
initiated at the end of a burst cycle, there is no disclosure of
what relationship, if any, this APC signal has to the self
refresh operation signal SR. In our view, Ooishi, at best,
describes, as asserted by the Examiner (Answer, page 7), some
activity which occurs at the end of a burst cycle, a disclosure
which falls well short of the specific claimed relationship of a
masking operation and an end of transfer command.
In view of the above discussion, in order for us to sustain
the Examiner’s rejection, we would need to resort to
impermissible speculation or unfounded assumptions or rationales
to supply deficiencies in the factual basis of the rejection
before us. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007