Appeal No. 2001-0740
Application 09/054,415
of current that is inactive when currents 2I or I are applied.
The anticipation rejection of claim 18 is sustained.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wang
Appellants argue that Wang does not teach the limitations of
claims 5-8 (Br18-19).
With respect to claim 5, the examiner finds that Wang does
not show the power control circuit with current mirrors (FR12).
The examiner finds that Wang discloses that other circuitry could
be used and concludes that it would have been obvious to replace
the current sources and the corresponding switches with current
mirrors, which could include current mirrors coupled in parallel
(FR12).
The fact that other circuitry could be used is not
motivation for using current mirrors, much less the claimed two
current mirrors in parallel. There must be some reason why one
of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use two current
mirrors in parallel and the examiner does not provide that
reason, nor any reference. The rejection of claim 5, and claims
6-8 which depend on claim 5, is reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, is reversed.
- 29 -
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007