Appeal No. 1999-2568
Application No. 08/640,096
1972
Claims 2 through 6 stand rejected under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of enablement.
Claim 6 stands rejected under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112 for indefiniteness.
Claims 1 through 3, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Belluche.
Claims 2, 4 through 6, 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Belluche.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 9 and 11)
and the answers (paper numbers 10 and 12) for the respective
positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse all of the rejections of record.
Turning first as we must to the indefiniteness rejection,
the examiner’s rejection is as follows (answer, page 3):
In claim 6, line 2, the recitation of “a lower
threshold voltage” is indefinite. What is the
threshold voltage lower than? On line 3, the
recitation of “a terminal voltage” is indefinite.
What determines a terminal voltage?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007