Ex Parte Karidis et al - Page 7


                   Appeal No. 2006-1881                                                                                            
                   Application 10/145,408                                                                                          


                          Beginning at page 7 of the reply brief, appellant again relies upon the remarks in                       
                   the principal brief on appeal as to the patentability of all claims on appeal.  Lastly,                         
                   appellant quotes, at the middle of page 7 of the reply brief, certain remarks made by the                       
                   examiner at the middle of page 12 of the answer that appellant interprets as a possible                         
                   rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112.  In urging that these would constitute a new ground of                         
                   rejection, appellant requests that the examiner reopen prosecution to address these                             
                   remarks.  Since appellant has not argued before us these remarks of the examiner, they                          
                   are considered to have been waived.  We do understand, however, the examiner’s                                  
                   remarks at page 12 of the answer because the recited device or low voltage device in                            
                   independent claim 39, for example, is only passively recited.  This leads to the major                          
                   question, perhaps under the second paragraph under 35 U.S.C. § 112, whether this device                         
                   is to be considered a part of the claimed invention or not.  As we have noted earlier, the                      
                   discussion at the bottom of column 9 in the Summary of the Invention in Ker                                     
                   contemplates additional devices connected to a transmission medium.  It goes without                            
                   saying that a pad of an integrated circuit is per se bi-directional in that it may permit the                   
                   bi-directional communication of signals to and from an integrated circuit.                                      













                                                                7                                                                  



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007