Appeal No. 2000-0131
Application No. 08/800,972
that would convince us of any error in the Examiner’s line of
reasoning (id. at 7) that the disclosed biasing function of the
transistors 84 and 86 in Fuller would be defeated if the intrinsic
diodes of the MOSFET switch 82 were allowed to turn on at a voltage
drop less than that of the voltage drops across the transistors 84
and 86.
For the above reasons, it is our opinion that, since the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness has not been rebutted by
any convincing arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 16, and
claims 17 and 19 which fall with claim 16, is sustained.
We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 25 and 26 (the representative claim for
Appellants’ suggested grouping of claims 26-29) based on Fuller. In
contrast to the “predetermined level” language of claim 16
discussed supra, independent claims 25 and 26 specifically require
operation of the body bias generator transistors in relation to a
predetermined voltage interval which defines a “deadband” range.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007