Appeal No. 1997-1641
Application 08/352,143
the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 15) and the supplemental
examiner’s answers (Paper Nos. 18 and 24) and the appellants’
brief (Paper No. 14) and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 16 and 22).
Opinion
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented
by both the examiner and the appellants, we have concluded that
the rejection should not be sustained.
With respect to independent claim 1, appellants contend that
Cordoba does not disclose voltage generation means for generating
a second voltage of a second polarity differing from said first
polarity. At page 10, lines 8-11, of the brief, appellants argue
that there is no teaching in the reference for a second charge
pump to provide the power supply voltage V It is urged that the
cc.
external battery of Cordoba utilized to generate the voltage V is
cc
not a structural equivalent of the voltage generation means
described in appellants’ specification. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d
1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007