Appeal No. 2004-0593
Application No. 09/606,688
consequence, at least one of the first and second transistors of
pair 30 necessarily are larger than at least one of the third and
fourth transistors of pair 36 of successive or preceding stages,
and at least one of the third and fourth transistors necessarily
are smaller than at least one of the first and second transistors
of preceding or successive stages.
Whether the appellant intended to cover this arrangement with
the appellant’s claims is questionable; however, it is the
applicants’ burden to precisely define the invention. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir.
1997). The claims do not specify which “ones” are to be larger or
smaller than “other ones,” or that the transistors be larger or
smaller than their “respective counterparts” in other stages.
Accordingly, we agree with the examiner that the claimed
arrangement is found within Rempfer.
The appellant argues that, for claims 27, 31, 35, and 39, a
plurality of stages in non-feedback series cascade2 are recited.
Rempfer, it is stated, discloses a feedback series cascade.
(Appeal Brief, page 9, lines 6-15). The examiner observes that
Figure 7 illustrates an open switch which, when open, results in a
non-feedback series cascade. (Examiner’s Answer, page 8, lines
2 Again, our review of the specification reveals that it is unclear if the term
“non-cascade,” added in the new claims presented by the amendment of Paper 15,
has supporting description in the as-filed specification. In the event of
further prosecution of this application, the examiner and the appellant should
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007