Appeal No. 2004-1839
Application No. 09/921,604
Appellant does argue, at page 7 of the principal brief, for example, that nothing in
Young teaches or suggests “replacing a driving circuit as claimed” and that “insertion of
buffers/repeaters means that additional circuits are added to the existing circuitry.”
Appellant also argues thereat that Young’s spacing wires further apart is “not the same
as replacing a driving circuit.” Accordingly, we find it telling that appellant stresses the
claimed “replacement” of a driving circuit as patentably distinct from the addition of a
buffer/repeater, but does not stress or argue that buffers/repeaters, e.g., the repeaters
of Young, are different from the claimed drive circuits. None of appellant’s arguments
are directed to Young not disclosing or suggesting “drive circuits” and, it would almost
appear from such lack of argument in the briefs, and the acknowledgment (principal
brief-page 7) that the instant invention is an improvement over Young and that buffers
were known to be inserted in the circuit but that this increased the number of elements,
that appellant understands, as did the examiner, that the repeaters of Young do, in fact,
constitute “driving circuits,” as claimed.
In fact, it is apparent from appellant’s arguments that appellant is contending only
that the “replacement,” rather than the “addition,” of a driving circuit allegedly
distinguishes the instant claimed invention over the prior art of Young. For the reasons
supra, we cannot agree. As an example, if an additional resistor of equal value is
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007