Ex parte HUNLEY - Page 2



          Appeal No. 95-0020                                                          
          Application No. 08/052,213                                                  

               The invention is directed to a CMOS buffer with a controlled           
          slew rate.  By optimally controlling the rate of transition from            
          a high/low state to a low/high state at the output, reduction of            
          signal line reflection and ringing at the output and in the cable           
          or connectors coupled to the output is said to be enabled.                  
               Independent claim 42 is reproduced as follows:                         
               42. A method of controlling slew rate on an output terminal,           
          comprising the steps of:                                                    
               activating an output transistor;                                       
               comparing a voltage on the output terminal to an internal              
          node voltage during output transistor activation; and                       
               modulating the rate of a voltage transition at the output              
          terminal in response to the comparison of the output terminal to            
          the internal node voltage.                                                  
               The examiner relies on the following reference:                        
          Bianchi             5,122,690           Jun. 16, 1992                       
                                        (filed Oct. 16, 1990)                         
               Claims 42 through 44 and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.             
          '  102(e) as anticipated by Bianchi.                                        
               Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective           
          positions of appellant and the examiner.                                    
                                       OPINION                                        
               In accordance with appellant’s statement at page 3 of the              
          brief, claims 42 through 44 and 46 stand or fall together.                  
          Accordingly, we will base our decision on an analysis of                    
          independent claim 42.                                                       


                                          2                                           



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007