Appeal No. 2000-0706
Application No. 08/675,665
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH
The examiner maintains that "said (the) secondary circuit through" lacks proper
antecedent basis. (See answer at page 4.) We agree with the examiner. Appellants
merely provide a brief argument and identify line 23 of the claim as providing a proper
antecedent basis for claimed element. (See brief at page 6.) Additionally, appellants
rely upon the proposed amendment to the claims to remedy the deficiency. This
proposed amendment was denied entry by the examiner and is therefore not before us.
We consider the claim language as it stands unamended and the sole argument
presented thereto by appellants. Considering the language of the claim, we agree
with the examiner that "the secondary circuit" in lines 23, 26 and 27 lacks proper
antecedent basis. It is unclear whether the secondary circuit is an additional element to
the claimed circuit arrangement or refers to the "second circuit" or to the "secondary
winding" of the transformer. When we refer to the specification to interpret the claim
language, we find a specification that is quite brief and does not clearly define the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007