Appeal No. 2000-0142 Page 6
Application No. 08/705,569
• obviousness rejection over De La Plaza and Seki
• obviousness rejection over AAPA and De La Plaza. 3
We start with the indefiniteness rejections.
I. Indefiniteness Rejections
Rather than reiterate the arguments of the examiner or
appellants in toto, we address the three points of contention
therebetween. First, the examiner asserts, "[i]n claim 1, the
recitation ‘first means and the reference resistor comprise
mutually separate components from components of the current
amplifier’ . . . is unclear . . . because it is not understood
what the components of the current amplifier are."
(Examiner's Answer at 5.) The appellants argue, "[s]ince the
claim is to be interpreted in the light of the specification,
it should be apparent that the aforesaid subject matter of
claim 1 is in fact clear and definite." (Appeal Br. at 6.)
3Although the appellants argue about the examiner’s
refusal to enter an amendment submitted after the final
rejection, (Appeal Br. at 5-8), such an issue is to be
settled by petition to the Director of the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office rather than by appeal to the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences. See In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d
1395, 1403, 169 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA 1971).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007