Appeal No. 95-5020
Application 08/151,041
paragraph. In particular, Appellant points out that claim 53
requires a short duration pulse which has an amplitude
"sufficient for initiating said discharge activity with a time
delay from occurrence of said trigger pulse having said
predetermined order of magnitude of said predetermined
duration of said trigger pulse." Appellant further points out
that the specification discloses that the discharge occurs
within the trigger pulse duration of one microsecond.
Appellant argues that a delay within the trigger
pulse duration of one microsecond is a discharge occurring
substantially simultaneously with the trigger pulse.
Upon a close review of the claim in light of the teaching
of the disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing
ordinary skill in the art, we find that Appellant's claims set
out and circumscribe the particular area with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. We note that the term
"substan-tially simultaneous" does not require that there is
an exact coincidence. We find that a delay of one microsecond
is well within the meaning of this term. Therefore, we will
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 52 and 53 under
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007