Appeal No. 96-2551
Application 08/037,767
decision on petition mailed April 30, 1996, the Deputy Director of
Group 2500 held that the reply brief is entitled to consideration
only to the extent it concerns the § 112 rejection of claim 2 and
the "capacitor charging/discharging" example used for the first
time at page 9 of the Answer. Accordingly, we have considered the
reply brief only to this extent.
The examiner contends claim 1 fails to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the invention for several reasons.
Regarding the limitation "secondary pulses of first and second
polarities and first and second magnitudes," the examiner offers
two criticisms. The first is that the phrase "secondary pulses of
first and second polarities" is a complete description of both of
the pulses shown in Figure 5, with the result that the further
recitation of "first and second magnitudes" implies two additional
types of pulses, which have no support in the specification
(Answer at 6). We do not agree. While it is true that the phrase
"secondary pulses of first and second polarities" implies that the
pulses have amplitudes, the further recitation that these pulses
have first and second magnitudes does not imply anything not shown
in that figure. Instead, it merely makes explicit what is already
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007