Ex Parte Nash - Page 7

             Appeal 2007-1293                                                                                         
             Application 10/745,124                                                                                   

                    The Examiner contends that the rejections proper.  The Examiner states that:                      
                           -Firstly, none of the rejected claims recites any magnitude or range of                    
                    duration for single event transients. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments based                      
                    on the orders of duration are moot.                                                               
             Answer 6.                                                                                                

                    Initially, we note that Appellant’s Brief groups claims 1 through 3, 9, and 10                    
             together.  Thus, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we group claims 1                      
             through 3, 9, and 10 together and will treat independent claim 1 as the                                  
             representative claim of the group.  Thus, Appellant’s contentions present us with                        
             the issue of whether Lieder teaches an RC delay circuit which has a time constant                        
             sufficient to prevent single event transients from adversely affecting the logic                         
             circuit as recited in independent claim 1.                                                               

                                                 PRINCIPLES OF LAW                                                    
                    Office personnel must rely on Appellant’s disclosure to properly determine                        
             the meaning of the terms used in the claims.  Markman v. Westview Instruments,                           
             Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 1995).  “[I]nterpreting                          
             what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to be confused with adding an                                 
             extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.’”  In re                        
             Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1205, (Fed.                          
             Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original) (citing Intervet Am., Inc. v. Kee-Vet Labs., Inc.,                     
             887 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Fed.Cir.1989)).                                               





                                                          7                                                           


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013