Appeal No. 1998-0441
Application 08/713,089
the limitations of claim 7. See Ex parte Moelands,
3 USPQ2d 1474 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1987); Ex parte Porter,
25 USPQ2d 1144, 1147 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1992) ("While
claim 6 could be construed as an independent claim, drafted
in a short-hand format to avoid rewriting the particulars of
the nozzle recited in claim 7, for fee calculation purposes
the Office initially treats all claims that refer to another
claim as a dependent claim. M.P.E.P. § 608.01(n) under the
heading TREATMENT OF IMPROPER DEPENDENT CLAIMS.").
The Examiner states that "[i]t was said in the
specification background on pages 1-2, that the prior art
included ring oscillators used this way [i.e., in a
non-volatile memory device], which is therefore apparently
the prior art relied on" (EA7).
It is clear that the Examiner belatedly relies on the
admitted prior art in the specification for the first time
in the Examiner's Answer, although the Examiner's Answer
states that it does not contain any new ground of rejection.
Nevertheless, the admitted prior art does not disclose a
constant voltage supply connected to constant current
elements connected between series-connected inverter
- 12 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007