Appeal No. 2006-1881
Application 10/145,408
From our perspective, we note that the examiner relies upon the third embodiment
of Ker shown in figures 27 through 30. This is discussed at column 17, line 64 through
column 20, line 55. Pages 11 and 12 of the responsive arguments portion of the answer
specifically relies upon the teachings in the paragraph at column 18, line 61 through
column 19, line 2 to establish that the terminal Pad 500 in figure 27 is bi-directional for
input and output purposes. We agree with this notwithstanding appellant’s observations
to the contrary. Moreover, the summary of the invention at column 9, line 44, through
column 10, line 14 makes clear that the pad for the third embodiment is to be connected
to a transmission medium and functions as an input/output pad as claimed. Note
especially the discussion at column 9, lines 44 through 54.
We turn next to the second stated rejection of various claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Ker alone. Dependent claim 32 is representative and its major feature argued
is the maximum operating voltage being 3.0 volts or less. We agree with the examiner’s
basic rationale expressed at pages 7 and 8 of the answer that it would have been obvious
to have chosen such a voltage range for optimization purposes in accordance with a case
law cited there and any specific application of use. In any event, the specified voltage
levels for well known circuit construction techniques already have been recognized in the
art by appellant’s Background of the Invention at specification page 2, paragraph [7].
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007