Appeal No. 2006-0562
Application No. 09/952,588
appellants’ argument is not commensurate in scope with the language of the claim
which sets forth a specific structure which is taught and fairly suggested by the prior art
combination. Therefore, we do not find the argument persuasive, and we will sustain
the rejection of claims 41, 43, 44 and 46-52.
We reiterate our same conclusions with respect to the combination of Seshita
and Kamiya with respect to claims 41, 43, 44 and 46-52.
With respect to claims 39-41 and 43-52, we reiterate our same conclusions with
respect to the combination of Kojima and Nakayama. Appellants argue that neither
Kojima nor Nakayama teaches or fairly suggests controlling the magnitude of high
frequency current delivered to an input bond pad and therefore all of the elements are
not taught or suggested. (Brief at pages 20-21.) As discussed above, we disagree
and find that appellants’ argument is not commensurate in scope with the language of
the claim which sets forth a specific structure which is taught and fairly suggested by
the prior art combination. Therefore, we do not find the argument persuasive, and we
will sustain the rejection of claims 39-41 and 43-52.
With respect to dependent claim 42, appellants argue that none of Kojima,
Nakayama or Vercellotti teach or suggest the controlling as argued and that therefore
all of the limitations are not found in the prior art. As above, we disagree with
appellants, and will sustain the rejection of dependent claim 42.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007