Appeal No. 2005-0086
Application No. 09/969,265
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner are:
Joshi et al. (Joshi) 6,051,123 Apr. 18, 2000
Kato et al. (Kato I) EP 0 924 514 A2 Jun. 23, 1999
(published European Patent Application)
Kato et al. (Kato II) EP 0 678 740 A1 Oct. 25, 1995
(published European Patent Application)
The following rejections are before us for consideration:
I. Claim 13 stands finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite.
II. Claims 1-10 and 12-16 stand finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kato I with or without
Kato II.
III. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable in view of Kato I taken with Joshi.
Based on the record before us, we are compelled to reverse
each of the rejections applied by the examiner essentially for
the reasons set forth in appellants’ brief and reply brief.
First, with regard to the rejection of claim 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, we find that appellants have presented a
reasonable explanation in their brief of the “measuring” step as
defined by the claim. To wit, the second appearance of the term
“measuring” further defines the circumstances prevailing when the
measurement of the current is performed between the first
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007