Appeal No. 1997-1389
Application 08/642,811
35 U.S.C. § 112 than is required by the above noted precedent.
The examiner appears to desire more than a reasonable degree
of precision and particularity of the claim when read in the
absence of the disclosed invention and in the absence of the
teachings of the prior art. The examiner's remarks at pages 3
and 5 of the answer are without these key contexts.
Appellant's remarks at page 4 of the brief properly set forth
these contexts of the above-noted case law. We agree with
appellant's general view there that the meaning of the
questioned terms may be properly construed by an artisan in
the context of the type of motor being driven by the H-bridge
circuit. Granted, representative claim 1 is somewhat broad in
many respects, however, in our view, it is not so broad as to
be indefinite. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims
1 through 5 under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112.
As to the section 102 rejection of claim 1 in light
Hattori, we reverse this rejection. The examiner does not
assert in the rejection at pages 3 and 4 of the answer and in
the responsive arguments portion of the answer at page 6 that
the apparent feedback circuitry comprising the two transistors
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007