Appeal No. 2000-2100
Application No. 09/101,371
specification and drawings, this claim language is
definite to set out and circumscribe with a reasonable
degree of clarity and particularity the subject matter of
the present invention. Hence, the assertion that this
claim element is indefinite is erroneous and contrary to
proper examination for compliance with the requirements
for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
When the questioned claimed limitation is considered in light
of the application disclosure, as it would be by one possessing
ordinary skill in the art, we find that appellants have merely
disclosed and claimed bond wires that should be the “same.” In re
Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). In
other words, the claims merely require that the two bonds wires
must be the “same” shape so that they will carry the “same” amount
of current. Accordingly, the indefiniteness rejection is reversed
because we agree with appellants’ arguments.
Turning next to the obviousness rejection, the examiner states
(answer, page 4) that:
The prior art figures show all of the elements of the
claims except the symmetrically arranged bond wires.
Masuda et al. discloses an oscillator device (col. 7,
lines 60-67) comprising an integrated circuit having bond
wires arranged symmetrically. The symmetrical
arrangement reduces electromagnetic induction in the
circuit (col. 8, lines 1-4). Masuda does not disclose
that the symmetrical bond wire arrangement provides a
uniform current through the wires, however it is inherent
that the arrangement of Masuda performs the same function
as the applicant’s invention because the device has the
same structure as the applicant’s invention. Therefore
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007