Appeal No. 1997-2844
Application No. 08/242,881
Appellant's sole argument against the anticipation of
claims 1, 5, and 6 by Stakely is that Stakely "does not show,
teach or suggest that when the switching circuit is set to an
ON condition, a constant current output from a constant
current circuit is provided to a voltage dividing circuit (or
voltage dividing point)." (See Brief, page 12). Stated
another way, appellant contends (Brief, page 13) that "the
switch 18 of Stakely et al controls the input to a comparator
and does not control the input to a voltage dividing circuit
(or voltage dividing point)."
The claim limitation in question for claims 1 and 6
reads, "said switching circuit being set to an ON condition
where a constant current output from the constant current
circuit is provided to the voltage dividing circuit." In
Stakely, if we consider resistor R1 as part of the constant
current circuit and resistors R3, R5, and R8 as the voltage
divider, as the examiner has done, the switch means 18 is set
to ON (or connected to node N5) where the current output from
the constant current circuit (or from R1) is provided to node
N5 through R3 of the voltage dividing circuit. On the other
hand, when the switch means is set to OFF (or connected to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007