Ex Parte Farooqui - Page 3




                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