Appeal No. 1997-2844
Application No. 08/242,881
node N4), the output from the constant current circuit (or
from R1) is provided to node N4 without going through the
voltage dividing circuit (R3, R5, and R). Therefore, when the
output of the comparator controls which switching threshold,
N4 or N5, is being used, it likewise controls whether the
output from the constant current circuit is provided to the
voltage dividing circuit, as recited in the claims.
Consequently, the claim language for claims 1 and 6 is met by
Stakely, and we will affirm the anticipation rejection of
claims 1 and 6.
Claim 5 was not argued separately from claims 1 and 6.
Accordingly, we will affirm the anticipation rejection of
claim 5. Further, as to claim 2, appellant merely restates
the claim limitation, which is insufficient as an argument for
separate patentability. As stated in 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7),
For each ground of rejection which appellant
contests and which applies to a group of two or more
claims, the Board shall select a single claim from
the group and shall decide the appeal as to the
ground of rejection on the basis of that claim alone
unless a statement is included that the claims of
the group do not stand or fall together and, in the
argument under paragraph (c)(8) of this section,
appellant explains why the claims of the group are
believed to be separately patentable. Merely
pointing out differences in what the claims cover is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007