Appeal No. 96-0656
Application 08/099,277
12-18.
Claims 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 12 and its dependent claims 13-18, are considered indefinite because the
claim recites "a charging circuit ..." in paragraph 4 and "a charging circuit ..." in paragraph
8 of the claim. It is unclear whether appellant intends to reference the charging circuit in
paragraph 8 to the prior charging circuit introduced in paragraph 4 or to introduce a
second charging circuit. We have reviewed the specification and drawings and do not find
another charging circuit. We do find a "quick charge cycle followed by a trickle charge
cycle, which most effectively charges secondary batteries." (See specification at page 9,
5
paragraph 2.) Does appellant merely desire to claim a single charging circuit or does
appellant desire to claim separate charging circuits or a single circuit with two charging
cycles? If appellant desires merely a single charging circuit in paragraph 4 with a
reference thereto in paragraph 8 of claim 12, then the prior art rejection by the examiner
would be reversed in a similar manner as with respect to claim 7 and the new grounds of
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 would similarly apply.
Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the second paragraph of 35
5We have briefly reviewed the specification in this paragraph and question how capacitor C3
discharges to a voltage level that is "higher than the zener diode reference voltage level." The capacitor C3
would appear to be charged to a value V which is higher than V . Therefore, the capacitor would eitherf z
charge higher or discharge lower than V .
z
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007