Appeal No. 2006-1839
Application 10/071,379
In addition to these considerations with respect to independent claim 1 on appeal
as well as the subject matter of independent claims 12 and 13 on appeal, the essential
function as revealed in the latter portion of the summary of the invention at the bottom of
column 5 of Ohkubo is that the functionality of the interference preventing circuitry
effectively shields the signal line by decreasing an interline capacitance between the
specific signal wiring line in each of respective first and second shield wires. Again, this
is achieved by keeping the interference preventing signal in the same phase with respect
to the signal line itself; this is again repeated in the paragraph at the bottom of column 11
beginning at line 39 of Ohkubo. A more detailed discussion of this decrease in the
interline capacitance is at columns 8 and 9 of this reference.
It appears to us that the net effect of the operation of the circuitry is that there is
substantially no charging and discharging functions of the claims on appeal that occur in
the circuitry of Ohkubo in the manner claimed since the interline capacitance is zero or
substantially zero. Thus, we do not agree with the examiner’s urgings in the responsive
arguments portion of the answer as to the operability of Ohkubo reference as applied to
the claims on appeal. As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of the independent claims
1, 12 and 13 on appeal and their respective dependent claims.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007