Appeal No. 95-3917
Application 07/861,144
In claim 1, line 1 recites that the circuit has "a trimmable passive circuit component", while line 8
recites a "network" that defines "the terminals of the passive circuit component". It is not
understood how this is possible. Line 1 clearly claims a "passive circuit component", which would
be understood to be a distinct element. It is not seen how a "network" can define "the terminals"
of another distinct element. Also, the term "network" only describes the arrangement of circuit
elements. However, just claiming "a network" does not set forth any elements within the claimed
"integrated circuit".
The examiner appreciates that "clearly the 'network' is the 'passive circuit component'" (Final Rejection,
page 2). Since it is clear to the examiner, and clear to us, that the "network" is the "passive circuit
component" and that "a first node and a second node defining the terminals of the passive circuit
component" in claim 1 refer to the terminals of the network, not another distinct element, the claim is not
indefinite for this reason. Similar rationale by the examiner with respect to claims 8 and 14 is also
nonpersuasive: it is clearly the "network" that is being adjusted to a target value.
As to the claims not setting forth any elements within the "integrated circuit," this does not make the
claim indefinite, since the claim is directed to only the details of the passive circuit component. The
examiner must have seen many claims of this form; e.g., "a television receiver having an oscillator circuit
comprising . . .," where the claim just recites the details of the oscillator circuit. The "integrated circuit" sets
the generic environment for the passive circuit component; for this reason, the examiner should also
seriously consider withdrawing the objection to the drawings.
We have considered the examiner's reasons with respect to claim 20, but are not convinced that
there is any problem which renders the claim indefinite. The preamble statement that the method is "for
trimming" is not mutually exclusive with the body of the claim starting out with fabrication of an integrated
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007