Ex parte KIRKPATRICK II - Page 6

          Appeal No. 1997-0272                                                        
          Application No. 08/277,388                                                  

               The artisan of ordinary skill would clearly discern,                   
          within a reasonably short time period, how the various figures              
          in the drawings are interconnected and which elements perform               
          which functions.  While the artisan may need to refer to                    
          several different figures within the drawings in order to                   
          identify each of the claimed elements, we do not find this                  
          task to be so unreasonable as to constitute a proper rejection              
          under either the first or second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.  112.              
               Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C.  112, first               
          and second paragraphs, are reversed.                                        
               We now turn to the art rejections and, after a thorough                
          review thereof, we find that we will not sustain any of these               
          rejections either.                                                          

               Regarding the rejections of claim 1 based on anticipation              
          by either Sieverin or Kostal, neither reference is seen to                  
          disclose each and every element of instant claim 1.  Claim 1                
          requires, inter alia, that the temperature compensation                     
          circuit be connected to receive the second output signal from               
          the amplification circuit.  In Sieverin, as explained by                    
          appellant, the compensation is done at the input of the Hall                


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007