Appeal 2007-0803
Application 10/197,801
Of independent claims 1 and 11 included within the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102, Appellants only present arguments to these independent
claims collectively and present no separate arguments to the remaining
dependent claims encompassed by this rejection. The arguments at pages 16
through 20 of the principal Brief on appeal focus only on the meaning to be
attributed to the claimed “active state” and “standby state.” Appellants
repeatedly present arguments to us that urge us to read so-called definitions
of these states from the Specification into the claims such as the discussion
at pages 13 through 15 of the Specification as filed. The position presented
at the bottom of page 17 of the principal Brief on appeal, for example, that
the artisan would interpret these stated states of representative independent
claim 1 on appeal consistent with the present disclosure is noted. However,
the reasoning advanced there and at the bottom of page 18 urging us that the
skilled artisan “would be able to ascertain the intended definition of ‘active
and standby states’ by reading the present specification, particularly on at
least page 13, lines 7-12; and page 14, line 20 to page 15, line 17” invites us
to read the significant discussion of these portions of the Specification into
the claims which we decline to do. It appears that Appellants are more
specifically inviting us to read the disclosed and unclaimed feature of a low
threshold voltage having an increased on current and a high threshold
voltage associated with a decreased off-current into the subject matter
recited in the independent claims on appeal. Clearly, because these features
are not recited in claims 1 and 11, the arguments are not persuasive of
patentability.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013