Appeal No. 95-3917
Application 07/861,144
or that trimming be performed at the time of manufacture, or that the value obtained by trimming be
unchanged while the circuit is in operation. Any of these limitations could have been added to the claims
by amendment. As the examiner points out (Examiner's Answer, page 9), the values set in appellants'
network are not necessarily permanent. We do not doubt that some kinds of trimming involve permanent
setting at the time of manufacture as stated in McKenny's declaration. However, neither McKenny nor
appellants has shown that the examiner's interpretation of "trimming" is inconsistent with the broad
dictionary definition. "Absent an express definition in their specification, the fact that appellants can point
to definitions or usages that conform to their interpretation does not make the PTO's definition unreasonable
when the PTO can point to other sources that support their interpretation." In re Morris, No. 96-1425
(August 18, 1997), slip op. at 10. In addition, the claim language ("An integrated circuit having a trimmable
passive circuit component adjustable to achieve a precise target value . . . ." in claims 1 and 8, and "A
method for trimming a passive component in an integrated circuit, to achieve a precise target value . . . ."
in claim 20), suggests that the "trimmable" or "trimming" limitation is met if the limitations in the body of the
claim are met, which they are. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8, 11-12, 14,
17-18, and 20-21.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007