Appeal No. 1999-1850
Application No. 08/870,406
easily determine what comprises the invention and what meaning to give the claimed terms by
reference to the disclosure, we find no problem with the cited claim language, within the
meaning of
35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The examiner also contends that it is not clear from the language of claim 1 what is meant by
“the equivalent subcell” since this terminology lacks clear antecedent basis. Similarly, the
examiner contends that the language “the corresponding subcell” in claim 7 is indefinite.
Again, while the claim language could have been clearer, it is our view that the meaning of
these terms is made clear by reference to the instant disclosure. The device comprises a
common-emitter cell and a common-base cell. Each of these cells has a first and second subcell.
The first subcell of the common-emitter cell “corresponds”, or is equivalent to, the first subcell
of the common-base cell which, together with the common-emitter cell, makes up a unit
common-emitter/common-base cell arrangement. For example, with reference to instant Figure
2, and the attendant description in the specification, it is clear that the common-emitter stage and
common-base stage in the top two boxes comprise a unit and that the collector, 14, of the
common-emitter stage is connected to the emitter, 26, of the transistor “in the equivalent subcell”
(i.e., the common-base stage that corresponds to the common-emitter stage in question) of the
common-base cell.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112,
second paragraph.
4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007