Appeal No. 2004-1839
Application No. 09/921,604
F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 146-147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments which
appellant could have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been considered
and are deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR 1.192 (a)].
It is the examiner’s position that Young discloses the claimed subject matter but
for replacing a driving circuit for driving a victim wire with another one having a higher
driving ability. The examiner contends, however, that it was well known to size a
driver/buffer up or down, and that it would have been obvious to replace one driver with
another driver as this would equally increase drivability and eliminate violations of
crosstalk noise or glitch error.
For his part, appellant argues that Young discloses the elimination of crosstalk by
either (a) changing the wire spacing or (b) inserting repeaters in the victim’s signal, but
nothing therein suggests “replacing” a driving circuit with another one. Thus, contends
appellant, Young changes wire spacing, by placing wires further apart to decrease
interference therebetween, and/or “adds” to the existing circuitry by inserting repeaters,
but neither increasing wire spacing nor “adding” repeaters is the same as “replacing”
drivers, as claimed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007