Appeal No. 2004-1839
Application No. 09/921,604
Since the instant claims require “replacing a driving circuit...with another one
having a higher driving ability than the driving circuit” and, broadly, this is what would
essentially occur via the “addition” of another driving circuit, the instant claimed subject
matter would appear to be met.
The question here, as we see it, is whether either of the references suggests the
replacement, or addition, of “driving circuits.” Tam seems to focus on a “buffer” while
Young focuses on “repeaters.”
Tam discloses minimizing glitches by “increasing the size of the output buffer,”
but the examiner has offered no evidence that equates Tam’s output buffer to the
claimed “driving circuit.” Moreover, appellant challenges the disclosure of a “driving
circuit” by Tam, at page 2, line 2, of the reply brief, stating that “[n]owhere in Tam does
Tam show, teach or suggest any drive circuit.” Since the examiner has not provided
evidence to the contrary, we are constrained to agree with appellant that Tam’s output
buffer is not a “driving circuit,” as claimed.
We find otherwise with regard to the Young disclosure. The addition of repeaters
to a circuit in order to eliminate crosstalk noise, in Young, appears to act as an addition
of a “drive circuit” and appellant does not appear to deny this.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007