Appeal No. 1996-3591
Application No. 08/251,053
relied upon by the Examiner as support for the rejections.
We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in
reaching our decision, Appellant’s arguments set forth in the
Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
Examiner’s Answers.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that claims 8-14 particularly point out the invention in a
manner which complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We are also of the view that the evidence relied upon and the
level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the
invention set forth in claims 1-7 and 15. We reach the
opposite conclusion with respect to claims 8-14. Accordingly,
we affirm-in-part.
We consider first the rejection of claims 8-14 as being
indefinite under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The
Examiner’s basis for this rejection stems from the alleged
lack of clarity in the use of the term “band” in the phrase “.
. . voltage range band of said reference voltage . . .” at
line 4 of independent claim 8.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007