Ex parte BAKER et al. - Page 5




          Appeal No. 1998-0750                                                        
          Application 08/232,135                                                      


          amplifier 1 is higher than the voltage V  on the output line 9,             
                                                  OUT                                 
          the first output transistor 2 is turned on so that a charge                 
          current flows from first output transistor 2 to the output line 9.          
          As a result, the voltage V  is raised till it equals a voltage VOUT                                 IN         
          input to the non-inverted terminal of the differential amplifier            
          1.  In this period, the transistors 10, 11 and 12 remain off.               
          When the voltage V  is lower than the voltage V , a drainG                          OUT                     
          current flows from the transistor 10 so that the drain voltage of           
          the transistor 10 controls the gate of the output control                   
          transistor 11. This causes a drain current to flow from the output          
          control                                                                     
          transistor 11, thereby the second output transistor 12 is turned            
          on to flow a discharge current.  As a result, the voltage V  is             
                                                                     OUT              
          reduced till it equals the voltage V .                                      
                                              IN                                      
          Kumar discloses a matrix-addressed diode flat panel display                 
          of the field emission type.  In Figure 1, Kumar discloses                   
          apparatus for addressing the panel display.                                 
          Opinion                                                                     
          We will sustain the rejection of independent claim 4, and                   
          claims 61-63 which depend therefrom, as obvious over Kanayama.              
          Appellants argue that the claim 4 requirements that                         

                                            5                                         




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007