Appeal No. 95-3876
Application 08/222,009
At the hearing, counsel advised that the receiving means
corresponded to control circuit 4, the first circuit means to
part of control circuit 4, and the second circuit means to the
constant voltage generating circuit 2. Even if these
correspondences are consistent with the specification, they
can hardly be said to follow unambiguously from the
specification. Unfortunately, the examiner did not adequately
press Appellants for clarification.
Claim 12, which depends from claim 14, adds "a
constant voltage generating means" that appears to correspond
to the constant voltage generating circuit 2. Under the
doctrine of claim differentiation, claim 12 cannot add a
limitation that already exists in its parent claim. 35 U.S.C.
§ 112[4] ("[A] claim in dependent form shall ... specify a
further limitation[.]"). The fact that counsel identified a
correspondence inconsistent with the doctrine of claim
differentiation heightens the impression that the recited
means limitations are not well drafted. Since claim 14 stands
rejected after this appeal, Appellants should avail themselves
of the opportunity during any further prosecution to clarify
the meaning of the recited means elements. "It is the
- 41 -
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007