Appeal No. 95-3876
Application 08/222,009
The rejection should be reversed for all claims
Neither the examiner nor my colleagues contend that
the references disclose or suggest transistor Q3 or a control
means structurally equivalent to the flash firing control
circuit 5 with transistor Q3. Absent such a teaching or
suggestion, we cannot affirm the rejection of claim 14 on the
present record. The remaining claims properly depend from,
and thus stand with, claim 14.
Other means are ambiguous
Although claim 14 is patentably distinct from the
cited references, the prosecution of this claim illustrates
the inadequate analysis typically applied to means-plus-
function limitations during prosecution. For instance, the
disclosed structure corresponding to the following means
elements in claim 14 is, at best, obscure:
means for receiving a flash firing command
signal;
first circuit means for
generating a flash exciting signal
based on the flash firing command
signal; [and]
a second circuit means for
generating an enabling voltage for the
insulated gate bipolar transistor[.]
- 40 -
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007