Appeal No. 2000-0142 Page 9
Application No. 08/705,569
Here, claims 19 and 20 specify in pertinent part the
following limitations: "the resistance value of the reference
resistor.” Because a resistor inherently features a
resistance value, i.e., a resistance, the limitation “the
resistance value of the reference resistor” does not require
an antecedent recitation that the reference resistor has a
resistance value. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of
claims 1-10, 14, and 19 as being indefinite.
Third, the examiner asserts that in claims 15 and 20, “it
is not understood what the ‘any switching devices’ . . . is
and how the reference resistor can be independent of the any
switching devices.” (Examiner’s Answer at 5.) He further
asserts, “[i]n claim 20, the recitation ‘switching periods’ on
lines 3-4 is vague and indefinite because it is not understood
what the ‘switching periods’ are . . . .” (Id.) The
appellants argue, “[a]pplicants' apparatus does not use a
switching device and so the reference resistor must be
independent of any switching device present in the voltage-
current converter . . . .” (Appeal Br. at 7-8.) They further
argue, “since the voltage/current converter is devoid of any
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007