Appeal 2007-1362
Application 09/972,107
We do not agree. Whether or not the Examiner is correct to limit the term
“dual rail” to the architecture shown in Appellant’s Figure 7, Collar’s row 7
and row 8 switches clearly are arranged as two rails coupling the amplifier
network to the antenna network.
Therefore, Collar cannot anticipate claims 1 and 11 which require a
single rail output network.
With respect to the rejection of claims 18, 20, and 22, we note that
these claims do not recite any limitations that would require the output
network to be a single rail network. Claim 18 recites “selectably coupling
the signal to a first output device or a second switch via a first switch
according to a first switch selection,” which Appellants argue (Reply Br. 5)
requires that “a signal” applied to the first switch be selectably connectable
thereby to either one of an output device and a second switch. The
Examiner’s position is that the “or” terminology makes this claim language
broad enough to read on a first switch that can selectably couple a signal to a
second switch without also having the capability to alternatively selectably
couple the signal to a first output device (Answer 10). The claim uses
similar language to describe the operation of the second switch: “selectably
coupling the signal from the first switch to a second output device or a third
output device if the signal is not coupled to the first output device via the
second switch according to a second switch selection.”
In our view, Appellants’ interpretation of the claim language is the
correct one when the claims are considered as a whole.
As depicted in Figure 3 of Collar, the switch designated by number 81
allows the signal from switch 71 be selectably coupled to a first output
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013