Appeal No. 1997-3437
Application 08/315,740
Appellant has adequately defined the phrase “a balanced line
driver having two halves”. We further find that the above
explanation also answers the other questions raised by the
Examiner. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
The Examiner has rejected claims 24 to 25, 28, 32 and 34
as being anticipated by Yamanaka.
We note that a prior art reference anticipates the
subject of a claim when the reference discloses every feature
of the
claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently (see Hazani
v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1358,
1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data
Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir. 1984)).
We first take the independent claim 24. We have reviewed
the positions of the Examiner [answer, pages 3 to 4 and 5 to
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007