Appeal No. 1997-1505 Page 10
Application No. 08/580,778
normal operation of the recited circuit structure” (emphasis
original) and would be “more appropriate for a method of
programming a divider circuit, not a method for generating a
fixed voltage.”
The appellants have the right to determine how their
claims should be drafted in order to particularly point out
and distinctly claim that which they regard as their
invention.
Acceptability of the claim language depends on whether
one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is
claimed in light of the specification. Seattle box Co., v.
Industrial Crating & Packing Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ
568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The examiner has not set forth any
specific language of the method steps, of lines 18-23, that
the examiner is relying upon to support the examiner’s
conclusion of indefiniteness. We find the language of claim
13 to be consistent with the appellants specification and
drawings, and therefore definite. Accordingly, the rejection
of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
reversed.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007