Appeal 2007-0803
Application 10/197,801
subject matter of the claims of rejected claims. Correspondingly, to the
extent pages 8 and 9 of the Reply Brief attempt to argue that it would not
have been obvious to have combined these references, that there is no
motivation to modify Hirano or that there is improper hindsight exercised by
the Examiner, the arguments are not considered since they were presented in
a untimely manner in a Reply Brief and not first presented in a timely
manner in the principal Brief on appeal. In context as well, the positions set
forth at pages 8 and 9 of the Reply Brief appear to only apply to the master-
slave flip-flop feature recited only in the preamble of independent claim 23
on appeal.
The other remarks at page 22 of the Reply Brief relating to the
rejection under 103 argues features associated with Hirano that have been
dealt with, with respect to our earlier discussion of the rejection of other
claims under Section 102. Pages 5 and 6 of the Answer set forth a view that
it was notoriously well known in the art to connect two latches in cascade to
construct a master-slave flip flop as applied to claims 23 and 24 on appeal.
This view is only briefly and generally mentioned at the bottom of page 22
of the principal Brief on appeal. The Examiner’s Responsive arguments at
pages 11 and 12 in the Answer as to these arguments of this rejection
distinguish between the Examiner’s views as to independent claims 21, 22,
and 25 on appeal and the Examiner’s views with respect to independent
claim 23 and its dependent claim 24 on appeal. The remarks at page 8 and 9
of the Reply Brief do not contest the Examiner’s views expressed as to the
notoriousness of this position of the Examiner and make no mention that the
Examiner has well documented at page 12 of the Answer that a previously
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013