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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007