Appeal No. 2000-0751
Application No. 08/903,549
these references for making a connection to a boosted power
supply” [brief-page 7]. Appellant’s argument, in a nutshell, is
that “[w]hile the Examiner repeatedly insists that the language
covers the “ability to” be so connected, the Federal Circuit has
made it absolutely clear that the “adapted to” language covers
the structure that enables this arrangement to be achieved”
[brief-page 7]. Appellant cites Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp.,
903 F.2d 796, 801, 14 USPQ2d 1871, 1876 (Fed. Cir. 1990) as
support for this proposition.
We agree with the examiner that the language, “adapted
to...” only requires that the device be capable of doing what the
claim language recites, in this case, the gate electrode being
selectively connected to a negative potential and the transfer
gate being selectively connected to a positive voltage boosted
above the supply voltage. Appellant’s reading of Pac-Tec is
misplaced in that there is no requirement that specific structure
be read into the claim from the specification; only that meaning
be given to the term, “adapted to” so that the prior art being
applied against the claim is capable of the claimed function.
That is, structure recited in the claim must be capable of
performing the claimed function following the “adapted to”
language.
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007