Ex parte CORDOBA et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1996-3229                                                        
          Application 08/271,477                                                      



          through 24 and 26 through 29  have been canceled.  Claims 31,2                                               
          33, 34 , 39 and 40 are objected to and indicated as containing3                                                                     
          allowable subject matter.  Claim 41 is indicated as allowable.              
          Proposed claims 42 and 43 were denied entry.                                
                    The invention relates to a current limiting circuit               
          and a latch.  One of the objectives of the current limiting                 
          circuit is to reduce “through current” or “crowbar current”                 
          while the latch limits current loss and prevents the output                 
          from floating.  In particular, referring to Figure 2, 400 is                
          the latch circuit, 300 is the current limiting circuit which                
          contains a first inverting circuit 302 which in turn contains               
          first and second inverters 309 and 315 respectively.                        
                    The only rejected independent claim 25 is reproduced              
          as follows:                                                                 
                    25.  A current limiting circuit comprising:                       
                    a first inverting circuit having an input for                     
          receiving an input signal, a first output for outputting a                  
          first output signal and an second output for outputting a                   



               Claim 29 was canceled by amendment E, Paper No. 14, and its limitations inserted into claim 25. Thus, the2                                                                     
          final rejection of claim 29, Gabara in view of Bonneau became applicable to claim 25.
               The rejection of claims 33 and 34 was withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer.3                                                                     
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007