Appeal No. 2005-0303
Application No. 09/928,884
page 4). It is urged by appellants that these elements of Natsume are electrical
components within a circuit assembly but they are not circuit assemblies themselves.
Appellants argue that “partitioned circuits,” as claimed, and as described in the
specification, at paragraph 15, must “perform functions” and are “not mere components
within a single circuit” (principal brief-page 5).
Moreover, appellants argue that Natsume does not teach the claimed “engine
controller” since a fuse panel is not an engine controller, and that the instant claims are
“clearly and unambiguously limited...to an automotive engine controller” (principal brief-
page 5).
We have carefully reviewed the evidence in this case, including the arguments of
appellants and the examiner and we conclude that the examiner has set forth a prima
facie case of anticipation which has not been convincingly rebutted by appellants.
Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. §102 (b).
It is our view that “partitioned circuits,” as broadly recited, may, indeed,
encompass any circuit which is not integral with another circuit, i.e., it is “partitioned”
with regard to other circuits. The fuse 16 of Natsume is clearly a “circuit element” and it
is separate from, but connectable to, other circuit elements, so it may be said to be a
“partitioned circuit.” Appellants attempt to give a special meaning to the term
“partitioned circuits” by pointing to paragraph 15 of the specification, specifically to the
recitation of “. . . the use of the partitioned circuit assembly 14 may be utilized to add
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007