Appeal No. 2006-0547
Application No. 10/276,568
Appellant argues that since Robb does not disclose the signal transmission, the
rejection is not tenable. (Brief at page 6.)
The examiner has addressed this argument at paragraph (3) on page 6 of the
answer. Here, the examiner has found that appellant has not defined the terms
high pressure side and low pressure side except with respect to the meandering pattern
of the polysilicon resistor in Figures 1 to 3. The examiner maintains that Robb contains
a high pressure side and low pressure side with respect to the higher or lower potential
contacts 33 and 29. The examiner maintains that the polysilicon resistor could transmit
a signal. The examiner maintains that intended use and other functional language must
result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art.
(Answer at pages 6-7.) We agree with the examiner that the claim language must
establish some structural difference between the semiconductor power component and
the prior art. We find that the examiner’s position is that the polysilicon resistor of Robb
is a polysilicon resistor “being formed so that it is operative for signal transmission” and
“being formed so as to provide signal transmission.” We agree with the examiner and
find that there is no structural difference between independent claim 12 and Robb. We
find that the polysilicon resistor of Robb is capable of providing signal transmission. If
appellant desires to claim a new use of an old device that the new use must be claimed
as a process or needs to recite structural differences between the claimed invention
and the prior art device. Therefore, we find that the examiner has established a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007