Appeal No. 1997-1505 Page 8
Application No. 08/580,778
Turning next to claim 10, we find the issue to be similar
to the issue discussed with respect to claim 7. We therefore
reverse the rejection of claim 10 for the same reasons as we
reversed the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
We now turn to claim 12. The examiner asserts (answer,
page 4) that the claim language regarding the opening of laser
fuses based on a count of the ripple counter makes it appear
that the opening of fuses is an ongoing process. In the
examiner’s opinion, this renders the claim indefinite, because
opening of fuses is a one-time occurrence. We note that claim
12 recites that “selected ones of said laser fuses are opened
when a count of the ripple counter is at the value where the
desired reference voltage is attained. We are in agreement
with the appellants (brief, page 8) that the use of the
qualifying term “when” in the claim precisely defines when the
fuses are opened, in a manner consistent with the
specification. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is reversed.
Turning now to claim 13, the examiner asserts (answer,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007