Appeal No. 2000-2188 Page 3
Application No. 09/063,050
a fourth means for receiving the fourth signal and
transferring to a load the potential charged on the node and
on the charging means.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
Examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Gazda et al. (Gazda) 5,703,540 Dec. 30, 1997
(filed Aug. 27, 1996)
Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art, pages 1-4 and Figure 1.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as being indefinite.
Claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by the admitted prior art.
Claims 2, 3 and 5 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art in
view of Gazda.
We note that claims 7 and 8 were also rejected under the
first paragraph and the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as
set forth in the final rejection (Paper No. 7, mailed August 30,
1999), which were neither included nor argued in the answer.2
Since these other grounds of rejection were not included in the
Examiner’s answer, we assume that these grounds of rejection have
2 The § 112, second paragraph rejection related to the lack
of antecedent basis for the term “the voltage generator” was
withdrawn.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007