Ex parte Goumaz

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 20, 2000

08210298 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 20, 2000)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication
in a law journal and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JEAN-FRANCOIS GOUMAZ
____________
Appeal No. 1997-2296
Application No. 08/210,298
____________
HEARD: OCTOBER 11, 2000
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, FLEMING, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.
BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner's final
rejection of Claims 1 and 2.
We reverse.
Appeal No. 1997-2296
Application No. 08/210,298
A second rejection over a different reference has been withdrawn. (See Answer, page 2.)1
-2-
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention is directed to a sampling circuit for use in a digital sampling
oscilloscope. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. Sampling circuit for a digital oscilloscope, comprising:
a current sampling switch for receiving an input and whose output represents
a charge packet[,] a charge amplifier having an input receiving the charge packet;
and
a charge-to-voltage converter having an input connected to an output of the
charge amplifier.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Harris et al. (Harris) 3,309,618 Mar. 14, 1967
Claims 3 through 7 have been objected to as being dependent upon a rejected
base claim, but allowable if rewritten in independent form.
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
Harris.1
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 7), the Examiner's Answer (Paper No.
16), and the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 19) for a statement of the
examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper No. 15), the Reply Brief (Paper No. 17), and
Appeal No. 1997-2296
Application No. 08/210,298
-3-
the Response to Supplemental Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 20) for appellant’s position
with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
The rejection of Claim 1 is founded on two different embodiments disclosed by
Harris: (1) the embodiment of Figure 3; or, alternatively, (2) the embodiment of Figure 1.
(See Answer, pages 3-4.) The examiner reads the claimed “charge amplifier” on “storage
means” 14 (Figure 3) or on “storage capacitor” 14 (Figure 1).
Appellant argues, inter alia, that “storage capacitor 14 is not an amplifier.” (Brief,
page 4.) The written description of Harris refers to element 14 of Figure 1 as “storage
capacitor 14.” See Harris, column 2, lines 5-16. Harris refers to the “storage means” 14 of
Figure 3 as “storage capacitor 14.” See id. at column 2, lines 35-49. The disclosed
circuitry (Figure 4) reveals that “storage capacitor 14” is, indeed, simply a capacitor.
“Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention.”
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388
(Fed. Cir. 1984). Claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Appeal No. 1997-2296
Application No. 08/210,298
-4-
An “amplifier” is defined as a “device that uses an electron tube, transistor,
magnetic unit, or other amplification-producing component to increase the strength of a
signal without appreciably altering its characteristic waveform.” McGraw-Hill Electronics
Dictionary, Fifth Edition (1994). Consistent with the accepted definition, appellant’s
embodiment of the “charge amplifier” comprises “a conventional bipolar operational
amplifier 4....” (See specification, paragraph bridging pages 7 and 8.)
We agree with appellant that the Harris reference cannot support a finding of
anticipation, at least for the reason that the artisan would not have considered passive
element (capacitor) 14 in the reference to be an “amplifier.” Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Section 102 rejection of the claims for anticipation by Harris.
Appeal No. 1997-2296
Application No. 08/210,298
-5-
CONCLUSION
The rejection of Claims 1 and 2 is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1997-2296
Application No. 08/210,298
-6-
OBLON SPIVAK MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT
FOURTH FLOOR
1755 JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY
ARLINGTON , VA 22202