Appeal No. 2005-0821
Application No. 09/960,356
refers to current (see the specification, page 6, ll. 9-13,
italics added; Brief, page 4; and Reply Brief, pages 1-2).
The examiner also finds that the scope of the “single
channel height analyzer circuit ... through said PN junction” is
unclear (Answer, page 3). The only supporting statement
presented by the examiner is that it is unclear how “selecting
only a pulse with a particular height” is related to the
“counting” or the “measuring peak height distribution” (id.). We
determine that the examiner has not met the initial burden of
establishing why this claim language is “unclear” or indefinite,
i.e., the examiner has not presented any cogent reasoning why one
of ordinary skill in this art would not have been apprised of the
scope of the contested language. See the specification, page 3,
ll. 21-28, and page 6, ll. 2-15. Although the examiner contests
the “enabling disclosure” for the single channel height analyzer
circuit (see the rejection infra), that fact does not render the
claim imprecise or indefinite. See In re Ehrreich, 590 F.2d 902,
906-07, 200 USPQ 504, 508 (CCPA 1979).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Brief and
Reply Brief, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims
3 and 5 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007