Appeal No. 2000-0142 Page 17
Application No. 08/705,569
the circuit. Because De La Plaza’s integration time constant
is substantially given by the product R C , we are persuaded
2 3
that the applied prior art discloses the limitations of “a
resistance capacitance (RC) circuit that is substantially
independent of the resistance value of the reference
resistor.” Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claims 18
and 19 as anticipated by De La Plaza.
Turning to claim 20, we recall that a rejection based on
prior art should not be grounded on "speculations and
assumptions." In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292,
295 (CCPA 1962). "All words in a claim must be considered in
judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.
If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain
terms in the claim, . . . the claim becomes indefinite." In
re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970).
Here, for the reasons we explained in addressing the
indefiniteness rejections, our analysis of claim 20 leaves us
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007