Ex parte MONTI et al. - Page 8

              Appeal No. 95-3917                                                                                                                          
              Application 07/861,144                                                                                                                      

                       Merrick also provides a DYNAMICALLY switched resistor bridge (to restore loop gain to unity                                        
                       after it has been changed).  Thus, the changes made in the resistor values would never be                                          
                       permanent.  Again, this is not related to trimming, but instead appears to be a variation of automatic                             
                       gain control.                                                                                                                      

              Appellant concludes that "Merrick does not suggest any relevance to trimming" (Brief, page 11).  The reply                                  

              brief argues that the examiner has chosen to rely on his own definition of "trimming," rather than the                                      

              definition provided by McKenny, an expert in the art (Reply Brief, page ii).                                                                

                       Claim 14 does not contain the word "trimming" in any form and, accordingly, appellants' arguments                                  

              are not commensurate in scope with claim 14.  The rejection of claim 14 is sustained.                                                       

                       During prosecution before the Patent and Trademark Office, when the claims may be amended,                                         

              claim language is given its broadest reasonable interpretation, and limitations appearing in the specification                              

              are not to be read into the claims.  In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51                                             

              (CCPA 1969); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989);                                                      

              In re Priest, 582 F.2d 33, 37, 199 USPQ 11, 15 (CCPA 1978) (inferential limitations are not to be read                                      

              into the claims).                                                                                                                           

                       The examiner correctly interpreted that "the term 'trimming' means the [sic, that] a value (in the                                 

              [sic, this] instance an impedance) is adjusted or varied" (Final Rejection, page 5).  As the examiner points                                

              out (Examiner's Answer, page 8), this interpretation that "trimming" is "adjusting" is factually consistent with                            

              the definition of "trimming" as "[t]he fine adjustment of capacitance, resistance, or inductance in a circuit,"                             

              Radio Shack Dictionary of Electronics.  This definition does not require that the adjustment be permanent,                                  

                                                                     - 8 -                                                                                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007