Appeal No. 2003-1208
Application 09/590,805
radiation. The examiner has not established that Murdock’s
doping of the diodes to lower the voltage at which they conduct
electricity renders them more susceptible to ionizing radiation.
Also, as discussed above regarding claim 1, Murdock’s diode
assembly circuit configuration and magnetoresistive sensor
element which the examiner relies upon as being, respectively,
the appellants’ safeguard device and utile device, are not
devices as that term is used by the appellants, and Murdock’s
diodes do not have the required three leads. The admitted prior
art which shows first and second devices having three leads does
not remedy these deficiencies in Murdock’ disclosure of diodes
and a magnetoresistive sensor element.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection over Murdock in view
of the admitted prior art of claim 22 and claims 23-25 which
depend therefrom.
New grounds of rejection
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as failing to claim subject matter which the appellants regard as
their invention.
As discussed above regarding the rejection of claim 6 over
Kalnitsky in view of the admitted prior art, the appellants’
original disclosure does not disclose an integrated circuit in
21
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007