Appeal No. 2006-1194
Application No. 10/601,204
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the Answer, as amplified here, we sustain the
rejection of various claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and, separately, the remaining claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Page 2 of the Brief initially characterizes the issues for decision as the
examiner’s interpretation of the term “electrically connected” in independent claim 7 on appeal
and imposes the question “Are two nodes in an electrical network that are ‘electrically
connected’ anticipated by two nodes that are connected via a resistor?” Our answer to this
question is yes.
Appellant’s contribution in the art is generally depicted in Figure 3 and more specifically
shown in Figure 4. This figure shows direct connections between various discrete electrical
elements and submodules. Paragraph 7 at page 2 of the specification as filed in the “Summary of
the Invention” utilizes the term “electrically connected” to describe the interrelationship among
the various recited elements. Correspondingly, the description of Figure 4 in paragraph [0018]
beginning at the bottom of page 3 of the specification as filed utilizes the term “interconnected”
or “connected” to describe the relationship between the various circuit elements shown in
Figure 4. The claimed “electrically connected” is not coextensive with the description of
Figure 4.
As responded to by the examiner beginning at page 6 of the Answer, we, as well as the
examiner, do not agree with the appellant’s assertion that the term “electrically connected” is in
direct conflict with the usage of that term in Mosinskis and the present specification. What is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007