Appeal No. 96-3902
Application 08/442,742
language of claim 1. The Examiner has set forth that the “means (4) coupled to said first
and common power supply voltage terminals” would provide the third power supply at the
second predetermined voltage (V ) (see answer at pages 5-6). We disagree since the
2
step-up circuit is not coupled to the supply voltage, V . Voltage V is the supply voltage atE 1
this portion of the circuit and the step-up circuit generates voltages V and V which vary2 3
with the input voltage V . Therefore, the Examiner has not presented a prima facie case of
1
anticipation of the invention as set forth in claim 1 by Shibasaki.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the Examiner. Upon evaluation of
all the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the Examiner
is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of anticipation with respect to claim 1.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Since all the limitations of independent claim 1 are not disclosed by the applied
prior art, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of appealed claims 2-7 which depend
therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-20 under
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007