Appeal No. 2003-0163
Application No. 09/400,508
dependency as well. (See brief at page 6.) We agree with the examiner, but would
rather categorize the claim language as broad rather than vague. In our interpretation
of the limitation, there is both a relative dependence and independence of the voltage
output from the low noise current source. The language of independent claim 1 states
that “low noise current source coupled between a first terminal of a voltage supply and
an output terminal, said low noise current source being capable of delivering a
preselected voltage signal to said output terminal having a magnitude responsive to a
first control signal relatively independent of the magnitude of the voltage on said first
terminal of said voltage supply.” Here, we find the language of the claim to be rather
broad in that it does not state a range or other limitation which would define the
relationship between the supply voltage and the output in the express language of the
claim. From our review of the specification, we find no express definition of the phrase
“relatively independent.” Therefore, we are left with the ordinary meaning of the phase
which we find to be both independent and dependent. Therefore, this argument is not
persuasive.
Appellant argues that it is well known that variations in the supply voltage
propagate through the system to the control voltages and that the control voltages draw
power from the power plane and that any variation in the voltage on the power planes
leads to some variation in the voltage supplied to the control signals and that therefore
if there is a droop in the supply voltage then there is a droop in the control voltage.
Appellant further argues that “[u]ndesired changes to the input control signal and the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007