Appeal No. 2000-2294
Application No. 08/511,425
art would understand what is claimed in light of the
specification. Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating &
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
After reviewing the arguments of record, we are in
agreement with Appellants (Brief, pages 14-16) that, contrary
to the Examiner’s assertion, there is no ambiguity or lack of
clarity in the claimed terminology “output terminals” and
“feedback.” In our view, the skilled artisan would recognize
the claimed “output terminals” as those located on the contact
regions 32 of the test wafer which are in communication with
the monitor and driving circuitry 34. Similarly, we agree
with Appellants that no ambiguity exists in the use of the
term “feedback” in relation to the claimed voltage and current
blocking circuits since this circuitry clearly functions to
route sensed signals back to the external test circuitry.
It is our view that the skilled artisan, having
considered the specification in its entirety, would have no
difficulty ascertaining the scope of the invention recited in
the appealed claims. Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection
under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is not
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007