Appeal No. 2001-0740
Application 09/054,415
e.g., a time when slew is expected. However, there is nothing in
Mizuide that positively requires a change in current during
operation; this would depend on V 1 and V2 and whether V1 is
increased or V2 is decreased (col. 7, lines 20-52), which may or
may not happen. Therefore, it cannot be said that Mizuide
inherently provides high power at one portion of an operational
cycle and low power otherwise. The anticipation rejection of
claims 1, 5, 7, and 8 over Mizuide is reversed.
Claim 10
Appellant argues that Mizuide does not show "an active
element, connected to said current sources so that only one
current source is active during an operational phase when power
requirements are relatively low and so that both current sources
are active during an operational phase when power requirements
are relatively high" as recited in claim 10 (Br12).
The examiner finds that Mizuide's 1, 3, 7, 9 can be deemed
an active element and current mirrors 55 and 61 can be deemed two
current sources where current source 55 is active during low
power requirement phases and both current sources are active
during high power requirement phases (FR8-9; EA15).
Claim 10 does not recite any "cycle" limitations or any
"amplifier" limitations on the nature of the active element.
Claim 10 is a very broad claim and appellants have not shown
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007