Appeal No. 2003-1262
Application No. 09/620,679
full range of its ordinary meaning as understood by persons
skilled in the relevant art, unless compelled otherwise. Texas
Digital Systems, Inc., 308 F.3d at 1202, 64 USPQ2d at 1818. See
also Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342, 60
USPQ2d 1851, 1854 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Appellant’s claim 7 requires a first resistance coupled to
“a first supply voltage” while a second resistance and a third
resistance are both coupled, not to a ground, but to “a second
supply voltage.” We are in agreement with Appellant’s
characterization of the term “a second supply voltage” as a
voltage level, such as the VTT in Figure 2A (oral hearing), which
is different from the ground level which is actually a reference
point by which the two different supply voltages are measured
(brief, page 6).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
the four corners of a single prior art document describe every
element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice
the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947
(Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007