Appeal No. 1998-0165
Application 08/566,270
into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44
USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415
F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
Appellant may also be arguing that the PIN diode in the
reference, rather than the switching transistor, should be
considered as comprising the “switching device” or the
“modulator.” Although the Abstract of Anderson, standing
alone, might suggest that the PIN diode performs the functions
claimed with respect to the “switching device” or “modulator,”
the noted detailed description of Anderson’s disclosure
establishes that circuitry including transistor switch 29
performs the functions recited in appellant’s Claims 1 and 10.
Although it is axiomatic that claims are broader than any
disclosed embodiment, we note another argument that compares
disclosure to disclosure:
Applicant submits that the impedance of his recited
transistor changes depending on the transistor’s
mode of operation (saturation mode or off mode). By
this arrangement, no additional components, such as
inductor 26' or PIN diode 27' of Anderson, are
necessary to facilitate switching between a first
and second oscillator frequency.
- 7 -7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007