Appeal No. 1997-3146
Application 08/558,670
§ 102 rather than under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 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).
Turning to claim 1, Appellants recite "an input
device . . . for enabling a user to select said given load
capacitance by providing a number corresponding to said given
load capacitance." We find that this claim language does set
out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable
degree
of precision and particularity when viewed in light of the
teachings of the disclosure. From the claim language in the
disclosure, it is clear that the Appellants are claiming that
a user selects a value that is inputted into the driver which
determines the load capacitance. We note that on page 4 of
the reply brief, Appellants argue this very point.
The Examiner also argues that the phrase "in
parallel" is indefinite. We note that the Examiner has not
pointed to the particular claim in which this language is
found. Turning to claim 1, we note that Appellants claim an
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007