Appeal 2007-1647
Application 10/631,841
Appellant contends that the coupling ratio represents the AC coupling of the
biasing voltage VB11 at the bias node b11 to the lower supply voltage VSS
(See Fig. 2).4 Appellant argues that this is essentially a capacitive voltage
divider and where the voltage VB11 at the bias node b11 becomes a function
of the coupling ratio (CR) expressed as CR = CHC/(CHC + CP) (Br. 17-18).
After carefully considering the evidence before us, we conclude that
Appellant’s claims 1-42 are not misdescriptive of the Specification. In
particular, we find that a broad but reasonable interpretation of the claim
language does not preclude a coupling ratio where CR = C /(C + CHC HC P).
Moreover, we find the Examiner’s interpretation here (i.e., that the claim
requires CR = C /CHC P) is inconsistent with the Examiner’s previous
admission that the coupling ratio is easily derived as CR = C /(C + CHC HC P)
(See Answer 8, ¶3). Therefore, we do not agree with the Examiner that the
claims are indefinite. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Independent Claim 1
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as
being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Rapp.
4 We note that Appellant refers to “bias node b11” in the Brief (Br. 17-18).
We find no “bias node b11” shown in Fig. 2. However, biasing node b11 is
described with respect to Fig. 2 in the Specification on page 62, lines 14, 15,
and 20. We consider this discrepancy as an apparent typographical error in
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013