Appeal No. 1997-1641
Application 08/352,143
We agree with the appellants’ position that claim 1 is not
anticipated by Cordoba, and we will not sustain the rejection of
this claim. The examiner’s argument that an inherent voltage
generation means supplies the voltage V in Cordoba is not
cc
persuasive. The examiner has not identified what he means by an
inherent voltage generation means. Having failed to do so, it is
not known whether it is a corresponding structure, or an
equivalent, of the second charge pump 25 in appellants’ Figure 1.
35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that the voltage V is
cc
provided by any apparatus other than the common battery, and it
has not been established that a battery is an equivalent of the
corresponding structure including the second charge pump 25
described in appellants’ specification, and at page 3, line 18, to
page 4, line 22, of appellants’ brief in its Summary of Invention.
Whereas we will not sustain the rejection of sole independent
claim 1 over Cordoba, we will not sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12 and 13 over that prior art.
Watsuji is not relied on by the examiner to compensate for the
deficiency of Cordoba with respect to claim 1.
REVERSED
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007