Appeal No. 95-3592
Application 08/109,203
of a constant value to a range of voltages is a resistance
responsive to the range of voltages. We note that the claim
language recites only “having a resistance responsive to the
voltage.” We further note that Shirato’s resistive means has
a resistance responsive to the voltage in that the current
varies according to the voltage divided by the resistance.
Appellants’ claims do not require that the resistance varies
with voltage change.
In the supplemental reply brief, Appellants argue
that our reviewing court in In re Donaldson Co. Inc., 16 F.3d
1189,
29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) held that function language
alone was determinative of patentability. However, we note
that Appellants did not argue that Appellants' resistive means
must be construed to corresponding structure found in
Appellants' specification. Furthermore, Appellants do not
point to corresponding structure in Appellants' specification.
Thus, we find that the Examiner properly interpreted the scope
of Appellants' claims.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007