Appeal No. 1999-1345 Page 6
Application No. 08/482,556
limited to the particular set of facts set forth in that
decision.” Id.2
Accordingly, we consider whether the claims of the
instant application are patentably distinct from those of
Metlitsky. Claims 33 and 40 specify in pertinent part the
following limitations: "generating a first derivative signal
...." Furthermore, claims 34-36 and 41-43 specify in
pertinent part the following limitations: “a low pass filter
having a resistor in series with a first capacitor which is in
parallel with a second capacitor in series with a switch.”
The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of
the limitations in the claims of Metlitsky. To the contrary,
she admits that the patent’s ”’signal processing means" ...
does not recite all the details of the [instant applications]
‘circuitry means’ ...." (Examiner’s Answer at 10.) Because
2The plurality’s opinion cautioned “‘against the tendency
'to freeze into rules of general application what, at best,
are statements applicable to particular fact situations'."
Schneller, 397 F.2d 350 at 355, 158 USPQ at 215 (quoting In re
Riden, 318 F.2d 761, 763, 138
USPQ 112, 114 (CCPA 1963)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007