Appeal No. 1998-3036
Application No. 08/404,920
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Dunlop.
OPINION
We carefully considered the entire record before us and we will reverse the 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 19, 20, 23, 24,
26 and 27. We will also reverse the 35 U.S.C. §103(a) of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 19,
20, 23, 24, 26 and 27 based upon the teachings of Dunlop.
35 U.S.C. §112, Second Paragraph Rejection
According to the examiner, the claims are indefinite because it appears that the
appellant meant to recite an analog or digital control signal, as opposed to just an analog
control voltage to control a group of transistors (Answer, page 4). The examiner concludes
(Answer page 4) that “[t]his is indefinite in the context of the claimed invention since
appellant is relying on such language to overcome the rejection.”
In response, appellant argues (Brief, page 9) that, “[e]ither digital or analog control
voltages can be connected to any of the transmission gates.” The appellant then specifies
that different results will occur when employing a digital signal, and that different results will
occur when employing an analog signal.
After reviewing the language used by the appellant to describe the invention in
claims 1, 23 and 24, we cannot support the examiner’s position that the claim language
is indefinite. On a first control line of the invention, the appellant has an analog control
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007