Appeal No. 2001-0740
Application 09/054,415
The examiner states that it is not clear in claim 17,
line 3, how "one current mirror" relates to the "two current
mirrors" recited on line 2. The examiner considers the phrase
"without adversely affecting the amplifier" on lines 3-4 of
claim 17 to be vague and indefinite, stating (EA5): "Since the
amplifier is a physical entity already fabricated, how would it
be affected?"
Appellants argue that it is clear from the context that the
one current mirror switched in and out is one of the two current
mirrors (Br10).
The examiner responds that since amplifiers can have more
than two current mirrors, the "one current mirror" does not
necessarily have to be one of the "two current mirrors" (EA12).
We agree with appellants. In addition, we note that the
limitation "without adversely affecting the amplifier" is broad
but not indefinite. An amplifier can be "adversely affected" by
being damaged with too much current. The rejection of claim 17
is reversed.
Claim 18
The examiner states that it is not clear in claim 18 how "an
amplifier's operational cycle" in line 4 relates to the "active
element" recited on both lines 2 and 3 (EA5).
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007