Appeal No. 2000-0142 Page 18
Application No. 08/705,569
in a quandary about what the claim specifies. Speculations
and assumptions would be required to decide the meaning of the
terms employed in the claim and the scope of the claim.
Therefore, we reverse pro forma the rejection of claim 20 as
anticipated by De La Plaza. We emphasize that our reversal is
based on procedure rather than on the merits of the
obviousness rejections. The reversal is not to be construed
as meaning that we consider the claims to be patentable as
presently drawn. We proceed to the first obviousness
rejection.
III. Obviousness Rejection over De La Plaza and Seki
Rather than reiterate the arguments of the examiner or
appellants in toto, we address the point of contention
therebetween. The examiner asserts, “[t]he skilled artisan
would be motivated to employ the capacitor in the voltage to
current converter in the De La Plaza et al reference for the
purpose of removing source voltage ripples.” (Examiner’s
Answer at 8.) The appellants argue, “even if Seki et al
teaches a shunt capacitor for filtering high-frequency
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007