Appeal No. 2001-2660
Application 09/392,341
then the second voltage of appellants' claim may be greater than
the claimed first voltage in appellants' prior art Figure 1.
Appellants' arguments at page 6 of the brief on appeal
urging patentability of claim 9 are misplaced. The position set
forth here as to this claim merely repeats the subject matter of
claim 9 and makes no assertion that the references relied upon by
the examiner does not meet the features and structure recited in
this claim. We note that the claimed set of input voltages
clearly is inclusive of a set of one to the extent shown in prior
art Figure 1 such that the group of nMOSFETs 130 of the domino
gate 120 may be one or a plurality of transistors.
We do not extend our affirmance of the rejection of claim 9
to its dependent claim 10 because claim 10 recites the same
nMOSFET as a part of a CMOS inverter as recited in the other
independent claims 1, 4, 5 and 8 as discussed earlier. The
rejection of dependent claim 11 is also reversed because it
depends from claim 10.
The examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8-13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is sustained only as to claim 9.
Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting the claims on
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed-in-part.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007