Ex Parte Bhattacharya et al - Page 1




             The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

                        UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                    
                                                     ____________                                                    
                              BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                     
                                           AND INTERFERENCES                                                         
                                                  ____________                                                       
               Ex parte Dipankar Bhattacharya, Makeshwar Kothandaraman, John Christopher Kriz,                       
                          Bernard Lee Morris, Jeffrey Jay Nagy, and Stefan Allen Siegel,                             
                                                  ____________                                                       
                                               Appeal No. 2006-2034                                                  
                                            Application No. 10/744,801                                               
                                                  ____________                                                       
                                                     ON BRIEF                                                        
                                                  ____________                                                       
             Before HAIRSTON, BARRY, and MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judges.                                    
             BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                     


                    A patent examiner rejected claims 1, 18, and 25.  The appellants appeal                          
             therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).  We reverse.                                                        


                                                 I. BACKGROUND                                                       

                    The invention at issue on appeal concerns compensating a circuit for variations.                 
             Circuit desirers often employ high speed buffers to meet demands for speed and                          
             performance in integrated circuits ("ICs").  Variations in the performance of buffers over              
             different process, voltage, and temperature ("PVT") ranges, however, have impeded the                   
             design of faster buffers.  (Spec. at 1.)                                                                







Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013