Ex parte BANKUTI et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1999-2584                                                        
          Application No. 08/562,988                                                  


          connected between the gate node and the source node, such                   
          resistance providing for continuous discharge of voltage                    
          accumulated on the gate-source capacitance.                                 
               Claim 7 is illustrative of the invention and reads as                  
          follows:                                                                    
                    7.  An electrically protected MOSFET consisting                   
               essentially of:                                                        
                    a MOSFET device having a gate node, a source                      
               node and a drain node; and                                             
                    a resistance connected between the gate node and                  
               the source node.                                                       
               The Examiner relies on the following prior art:                        
          Phipps et al. (Phipps)   EP 0 372 820 A2       Jun. 13, 1990                
          (published European patent application)                                     
               Claims 7-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                 
          being unpatentable over Phipps.                                             
               Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the              
          Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 20) and                 
          Answer (Paper No. 21) for the respective details.                           
                                      OPINION                                         
               We have carefully considered the subject matter on                                                                     
          appeal, the rejection advanced by the Examiner, the arguments               
          in support of the rejection, and the evidence of obviousness                
                                          2                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007