Appeal No. 2005-0826
Application No. 09/989,563
rejection for prima facie obviousness with respect to instant claim 1, but the arguments
do not persuade us that the claim has been rejected in error.
Appellants submit that claims 10 through 14 are separately patentable because
the “means plus functions limitations” must be examined in accordance with the
guidelines set forth in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). Appellants
do not tell us in what way the examination has been not in accordance with the MPEP
guidelines, nor in what way the allegation might be considered an argument in support
of separate patentability of the claims.
Aside from repeating language from claim 10, which is not an argument for
separate patentability (see 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2002); see also 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005)), appellants submit in the Brief that neither Javanifard nor
Furumochi discloses or suggests a voltage control circuit having a clamp circuit. For the
reasons set forth in our discussion of the rejection of claim 1, we do not find the
allegation persuasive.
In the Reply Brief (at 5), appellants submit that the proposed combination is “not
structurally or functionally equivalent to the disclosed combination of elements” as
claimed in claim 10. We have noted supra (in the discussion of claim 1), however, the
similarities in appellants’ circuit and the applied prior art. Appellants do not point out
any disclosed structure that may differ from the applied art. Appellants do allege that
the “means for generating a first control signal” includes circuitry that receives the test
supply voltage as feedback for controlling the test supply voltage.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007