Appeal 2007-0439
Application 10/630260
integrated circuits, and the overall full circuitry of Figures 6a
and 6b as the integrated circuit component recited in the
preamble and last line. (Answer, 7). We do not find error in
reading the breadth of this claim on ‘906.
7. With respect to claims 11 and 12, in ‘906 we note the reading
of the claimed limitations of alternatively configuring each
logic portion to communicate with the host IC and with the
companion IC as specified in the claim. (‘906, Figure 6a). We
have reviewed Examiner’s reading of the claim on ‘906, and
find no error, as each logic portion is alternatively connected to
the host through the companion and bus and to the companion
without the host as the I/O registers latch on the bus data lines.
(Answer, 8). Note the cross connections between the Flash
Memory Chips 670, 672.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On appeal, Appellant bears the burden of showing that the Examiner
has not established a legally sufficient basis for the rejection of the claims.
“In reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Although "the meaning of terms, phrases, or diagrams in a disclosure
is to be explained or interpreted from the vantage point of one skilled in the
art, all the limitations must appear in the specification." Lockwood v.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013