Appeal No. 1997-3843
Application No. 08/221,030
Claims 1, 2, and 7-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
Nishita. Claims 3-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Nishita in view of Pearson.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 15, mailed May 13, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 13, filed Feb. 12, 1997) and reply
brief (Paper No. 16, filed Jul. 17, 1997) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope of the claim.
"[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,1369, 47
USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore, we look to the limitations set forth in
claim 1. The language of the claim recites a “means for applying both the first and second
control signals to the capacitor to apply and remove charge to the capacitor proportional to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007