Appeal No. 96-2950
Application 08/145,710
the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 4 and 8 through 11
are anticipated by the applied references.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellants’ claim 1 recites
current increasing rate control means formed in said
substrate and responsive to a potential at said
predetermined node for controlling an increasing rate
of the output current by said current providing means,
wherein . . . said current increasing rate control
means comprises conductance increasing timing control
means responsive to the potential at said predetermined
node for controlling an increasing rate of a
conductance of said first field effect transistor, and
said current increasing rate control means controlling
the output driver circuit to operate in at least a
first state and a second state, said current providing
brief with a supplemental Examiner's answer dated February 23,
1996. We will refer to the supplemental Examiner's answer as
simply the supplemental answer.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007