Ex parte BRYSON et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 96-0230                                                          
          Application 08/056,094                                                      


               Appellants have appealed to the Board from the examiner’s              
          final rejection of claims 1 to 20, which constitute all the                 
          claims in the application.                                                  


               Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:                            
               1.  A circuit comprising:                                              
               pulse forming means responsive to a data input signal for              
          providing a pulsed output to an output node, said pulsed output             
          being timed in accordance with said data input signal and having            
          high and low voltage levels responsive to respective high and low           
          reference voltages, said pulse forming means comprising means for           
          providing charging currents to and discharging currents from said           
          node; and                                                                   
               means responsive to said high and low reference voltages for           
          adjusting said charging and discharging currents of said pulse              
          forming means in accordance with the difference between said high           
          and low reference voltages.                                                 
          The following references are relied on by the examiner:                     
          Borrelli                 4,070,565                Jan. 24, 1978             
          Chau et al. (Chau)       Re 31,056                Oct. 12, 1982             
          Murray et al. (Murray)   4,724,378                Feb. 09, 1988             
          Ugenti                   4,837,502                June 06, 1989             
               After a remand to the examiner from an earlier panel of this           
          Board, claims 1, 6, 11 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §              
          102(b) as being clearly anticipated by either Chau, Borrelli,               
          Murray or Ugenti.                                                           




                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007