Appeal No. 2002-2276
Application No. 09/472,702
that the Examiner has at least satisfied the burden of presenting
a prima facie case of anticipation. The burden is, therefore,
upon Appellants to come forward with evidence and/or arguments
which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case. Only
those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered
in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered (see
37 CFR § 1.192(a)).
Appellants’ arguments in response assert that the Examiner
has not shown how each of the claimed elements are present in the
disclosure of Chambers so as to establish a case of anticipation.
Appellants’ primary point of contention (Brief, pages 4 and 5;
Reply Brief, page 2) is that the circuit structure of Chambers
lacks any element which would correspond to the presently claimed
reference current source.
After careful review of the Chambers reference in light of
the arguments of record, we are in general agreement with the
Examiner’s position as stated in the Answer. Our interpretation
of the disclosure of Chambers coincides with that of the
Examiner, i.e., while the terminology “reference current source”
is not used by Chambers, it is apparent to us that elements 505
and 502 produce a current Isource which ultimately results in a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007