Appeal No. 2000-0131
Application No. 08/800,972
case of obviousness. Only those arguments actually made by
Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Brief have
not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
In response to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
representative independent claim 16, Appellants initially contend
(Brief, page 6) that, contrary to the Examiner’s position, Fuller
does not provide for a “deadband” of voltages across the terminals
of switch MOSFET 82 within which neither of the body bias generator
transistors 84 and 86 is turned on. After careful review of the
Fuller reference in light of the arguments of record, we are in
agreement with the Examiner’s position as expressed in the Answer.
As pointed out by the Examiner (Answer, page 9), the language
of claim 16 does not require a “deadband” of voltages but, rather,
only that the body of the switch MOSFET be biased to the lower of
the drain voltage or source voltage “... when a difference between
said drain and source voltages exceeds a predetermined level.” We
agree with the Examiner (id.) that the claimed “predetermined
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007