Appeal No. 2005-0826
Application No. 09/989,563
Appellants’ main contention in the briefs is that neither reference discloses or
suggests a “clamp circuit” as claimed. In the examiner’s opinion, as set out at pages 11
and 12 of the Answer, the diodes described by Furumochi operate as a “clamp circuit”
within the meaning of the claim.
Instant claim 1 recites, “a clamp circuit having a plurality of voltage regulation
devices, the voltage regulation devices controlling a clamping threshold of the clamp
circuit. . . .” The claim further recites a voltage regulator electrically coupled to the
clamp circuit which generates a first control signal “responsive to the clamping threshold
of the clamp circuit. . . .”
Appellants argue and rely on language that does not appear in claim 1,
seemingly on the basis that the artisan would recognize that a “clamp circuit” and a
“clamping threshold” would require more than the features expressed in the claim.
However, appellants have provided no extrinsic evidence, such as a section of a
relevant text in the art, in support of the allegations. Arguments of counsel are not
evidence. See, e.g., Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782, 193 USPQ 17, 22 (CCPA
1977); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974).
The instant specification describes a “clamp circuit” 210 (Fig. 3A). According to
paragraphs 39 and 40 of the written description, the clamp circuit operates to limit the
voltage at node 319. As voltage VCCR increases, the diodes 305, 307, 309, 311, and
313 slowly turn on to “clamp” the maximum voltage at node 319 to the total voltage
across the five diodes. This results in a fixed voltage at node 319. The “clamp circuit”
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007