Appeal No. 95-4545
Application No. 08/094220
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Nagasawa in view of Shinohara. Claim
3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Nagasawa in view of Shinohara and Seshita. Claim 4
stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Nagasawa in view of Sharp and McaMillian.
Claim 1
The examiner finds that Nagasawa discloses the claimed
invention except that Nagasawa’s pull down circuit 61 is
different. The recited pull down circuit comprises a constant
current source, a current adjusting enhancement-type field
effect transistor, and a resistor connected in a certain way.
The examiner finds that the recited pull down circuit is
disclosed by Shinohara. Appellant does not take issue with
those findings. In any event, we agree with those findings
and adopt them as our own.
According to the examiner, Shinohara suggested replacing
Nagasawa’s pull down circuit 61 with Shinohara’s pull down
circuit so that Nagasawa would have a pull down circuit
impervious to fluctuations in power supply. We agree with the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007