Appeal No. 96-3040
Application 08/135,650
With respect to independent claim 1, the examiner has read the invention of this
claim on a portion of Cho’s Figure 1. More specifically, the examiner reads the reference
voltage generation means on Cho’s block 50, the driver means reads on transistor 43, the
first and second resistor means read on Cho’s elements 42 and 41 respectively, and the
comparison means reads on block 60 of Cho. This reading establishes a prima facie
case of anticipation.
Appellants argue that the element of Cho which performs the comparable driving
function of their invention is element 70 rather than transistor 43. When element 70 is
taken as the claimed driver means, appellants point out that the recitations of claim 1 are
not satisfied [brief, pages 10-11]. This argument is not persuasive because it reads the
claim on something other than what the examiner has used to demonstrate anticipation.
The question is whether the recitations of the claim are met by any portion of Cho’s
disclosure, not whether appellants can select a different portion of the prior art disclosure
which does not meet the claimed invention.
Appellants argue that claim 1 is written in means plus function form and that the
claim must be construed in light of the disclosure [brief, page 9]. Appellants point to driver
circuit 30 of their Figure 1 as disclosing the driver means. This driver circuit is seen to be
an FET transistor labeled 301 in the figure. The examiner reads the driver means of claim
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007