Appeal No. 1996-0427
Application 08/210,224
second paragraph. See In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 715, 218
USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983) citing In re Borkowski, 422
F.2d 904, 909, 164 USPQ 642, 645-46 (CCPA 1970).
Upon our review of the Appellants' specification and
Figure 5, we find that the claim language "said signal contin-
ues to pulse between said first voltage and said second volt-
age level following said sequence" sets out and circumscribes
the particu- lar area with a reasonable degree of precision
and particularity. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejec-
tion of claims 3, 12 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 14, 19 and 20 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Yamamura. At
the outset, we note that Appellants state on pages 6 and 7 of
the brief four groups that stand or fall together. We note
that Appellants set forth the same argument for claims 1, 2,
5, 10, 11, 14, 19 and 20 in the brief. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)
(July 1, 1995) as amended at 60 Fed. Reg. 14518 (March 17,
1995), which was controlling at the time of Appellants' filing
the brief, states:
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007