Appeal No. 2004-0593
Application No. 09/606,688
second transistors, and an intermediate point between the third
and fourth transistors to each other. (Id, page 4, lines 10-14).
Finally, the examiner has found that the input of the first
stage represents an input, and the intermediate electrical
connection of a preceding stage is electrically connected to the
gate interconnection of a succeeding stage, and the intermediate
electrical connection of a final stage represents an output.
The recitation relating to the mirroring of output voltage is said
to be met by the reference as the structure of the claim is fully
met. (Id., page 4, lines 14-20).
The appellant first urges that Rempfer does not use the term
“matched” or “substantially matched” in reference to the
transistors. (Appeal Brief, page 5, lines 21-24). As a
consequence, it is reasoned, the rejected claims are not
anticipated by Rempfer.
In examining a patent claim, the PTO must apply the broadest
reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any
definitions presented in the specification. In re Yamamoto, 740
F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Words in a
claim are to be given their ordinary and accustomed meaning,
unless the inventor chose to be his own lexicographer in the
specification. Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007