Ex parte INOUE - Page 6




          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