Appeal No. 1997-3437
Application 08/315,740
the type of language used to define the subject matter for
which patent protection is sought.
With this as background, we analyze the specific
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, made by the
examiner of the claims on appeal. The Examiner contends
[answer, page 3] that the phrase “[a] balance line driver
having two halves, each half having therein the line driver”
in claim 29 is vague and indefinite, and raises questions
regarding the nature and definition of a balanced line driver.
Appellant argues [brief, page 23] that the “balanced and
unbalanced line drivers are well known to one of ordinary
skill in the art.” To support this argument Appellant submits
a copy of the U.S. Patent No. 5,304,856 with the brief.
First of all, we note that the Examiner has misquoted
above the phrase from claim 29. The correct phrase is “a
balanced line driver having two halves, each of the two halves
comprising the line driver” which does describe the feature
disclosed and claimed. We have also looked at Fig. 1 of the
specification and the above cited U.S. Patent, see for example
its “Abstract.” We are of the view that the term “balanced
line drivers” was indeed known in the art. Furthermore,
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007