Appeal No. 97-3673
Application No. 08/251,125
“first sub-circuit,” “second sub-circuit,” “third sub-
circuit,” and “fourth sub-circuit.”
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning first to the examiner’s objection to the
specification for failing to provide proper antecedent bases
for the various claimed sub-circuits, only claim 1 appears to
contain this language and there is no outstanding rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 before us. Nevertheless, to the
extent there is any rejection of claim 1 on this ground, we
note that the claim language to which the examiner objects
appears in the originally filed claim. Therefore, any
rejection of this claim based on the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 must fall.
Turning now to the rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, based on an inadequate written
description, we will not sustain this rejection. We agree
with appellant that the examiner’s rejection, alleging an
“impossibility” and that there will “always be a load across
two nodes that will drop the voltage across these two nodes,”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007