Appeal No. 2006-1839
Application 10/071,379
shield control circuitry that, after a transition on the signal path, causes the
first wire to transition to a value that causes a charge up of
capacitance between the signal path and the first wire, wherein a
subsequent transition on the signal path causes a discharge of
capacitance between the signal path and the first wire.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Petschauer 5,596,506 Jan. 21, 1997
Ohkubo 6,285,208 Sep. 4, 2001
Claims 1 and 3 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner relies upon Petschauer in view of Ohkubo.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner, reference is
made to the brief and reply brief for appellants’ positions, and to the answer for the
examiner positions.
OPINION
For the reasons generally set forth by appellants in the brief and reply brief, in
addition to our own set forth below, we reverse the rejection of all claims on appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 103. For the sake of simplifying our consideration here, we assume for the
sake of argument that Petschauer is properly combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103 with
Ohkubo.
The claimed shield control circuitry in independent claim 1, as well as the shield
control means in independent claim 12 and essentially the entire body of independent
claim 13, are generally alleged by the examiner to be taught within the confines of
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007