Appeal No. 2001-0740
Application 09/054,415
Appellants argue that the claim is broad but the language is
not indefinite (Br11).
We agree with appellants. The amplifier could be part of
the active element, or vice versa, or the amplifier and active
element could be completely unrelated devices except for the
broad relationship between the amplifier's operational cycle and
the selective activation of one of the sources. The rejection of
claim 18 is reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) - Mizuide
Appellants argue that Mizuide is directed to a differential
comparator with a hysteresis response and is not directed to an
amplifier as claimed (Br11). It is argued that there is no
teaching or suggestion in Mizuide of changing the power available
to an amplifier during different phases of operation (Br11).
Appellants then argue that selected limitations of the rejected
claims are not disclosed in Mizuide (Br11-13).
The examiner states that Mizuide is one type of amplifier, a
differential amplifier (EA14). The examiner further states that
although Mizuide does not specifically disclose changing power,
one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a change in
current relates to a change in power (EA14).
It appears that the examiner has applied Mizuide as a way of
showing that the claims are so broad that they read on subject
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007