Appeal No. 2004-1839
Application No. 09/921,604
The examiner counters that modifying a circuit by inserting repeaters/buffers “is
equal” to modifying a circuit by replacing one driver with another.
In responding to appellant’s arguments,, the examiner alleges that inserting
repeaters/buffers into a circuit, as done by Young, increases the size of the modified
driver circuit. In order to buttress this allegation, the examiner cites Tam for a showing
that increasing the size of a driver is achieved by increasing the size of a buffer, citing
column 3, lines 22-34, of Tam, for a disclosure of “increasing the size of the output
buffer” as an example of one of many designs for reducing the effects of glitching.
Normally, we would not consider the Tam reference because there would appear
to be no reason for the examiner failing to include a reference relied on in the statement
of the rejection. In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA
1970). However, based on appellant’s arguments directed to the Tam reference, it is
clear that appellant was aware of the examiner’s reliance thereon and was not
prejudiced in any way in having the examiner rely on this reference in the manner
applied. Accordingly, we will treat the rejection as relying on Young and Tam.
Claim 20 clearly requires “replacing” a driving circuit with “another one.” Both
appellant and the examiner agree that Young “adds,’ or inserts, another circuit/buffer
into the circuit, but does not physically “replace” one circuit/buffer with one, single,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007