Appeal 2007-1647
Application 10/631,841
regards as the invention. Specifically, the Examiner concludes that the
following claim language is misdescriptive of the disclosure2 (Answer 5):
a coupling ratio between a capacitance value of said large
capacitor and a capacitance value of a parasitic capacitor
coupled between said bias node and a ground reference point is
approximately equal to a unity value . . . ”
(independent claims 1, 12, 23, and 33).
In particular, the Examiner asserts that the coupling ratio, as claimed,
is merely determined by dividing the capacitance value of the large capacitor
by the smaller capacitance value of the parasitic capacitor. Thus, the
Examiner finds the claim language is misdescriptive of the Specification
(i.e., indefinite) because it appears to conform to a coupling ratio where CR
= CHC/CP instead of CR = CHC/(CHC + CP) (Answer 9).
The Appellant disagrees. Appellant rebuts the Examiner’s finding
with extrinsic evidence 3 that shows the coupling ratio is not the ratio of the
capacitance values between the very large capacitor and the parasitic
capacitor, as argued by the Examiner (See e.g., “Silicon Processing for the
VLSI Era,” page 625, formula ( 8 - 3)). As applied to the instant invention,
2 Although the terms of a claim may appear to be definite, inconsistency
with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an
otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re
Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 1000-01, 169 USPQ 95, 98 (CCPA 1971) (“No claim
may be read apart from and independent of the supporting disclosure on
which it is based.”).
3 See “Silicon Processing for the VLSI Era”, Volume II Process Integration,
Wolf, Latice Press, Sunset Beach, CA., 1990, pp: 623-627.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013