Appeal No. 2000-0142 Page 12
Application No. 08/705,569
affirm the rejection of claims 15 and 20 as being indefinite. 4
We proceed to the anticipation rejection.
II. Anticipation Rejection over De La Plaza
Rather than reiterate the arguments of the appellants or
examiner in toto, we address the two points of contention
therebetween. First, the examiner asserts, “[t]he De La Plaza
et al reference discloses in Figure 5 a voltage to current
converter circuit comprising a reference resistor (R1), . . .
a low pass filter (C3, R2), a current amplifier (M2) . . . .”
(Examiner’s Answer at 6.) The appellants argue, “[n]or is
there anything in the De La Plaza et al description that
discloses or even suggests that to make reference resistor R1
in Fig. 5 independent of the alleged current amplifier M2
4The appellants admit that the limitations of claims 15
and 20 regarding “any switching device” were “added in a prior
amendment ....” (Appeal Br. at 7.) Such an amendment raises
the question of whether persons skilled in the art would
recognize in the appellants’ original disclosure a description
of the invention as defined by the amended claims. Because
there is no rejection for lack of written description before
us, however, we leave the question to the examiner and
appellants.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007