Appeal No. 95-2433
Application No. 08/076,080
overlooked point in our decision of June 17, 1998.
More particularly, appellant alleges that even if the
substitutions alleged by the examiner are considered to have
been obvious, the resulting structure still does not teach or
suggest the limitations of claim 16. In support thereof,
appellant submits five figures, starting from Fig. 2 of Nagano
and changes one at a time, from PNP transistors substituted
for NPN transistors, to reversal of power supply polarities to
reversal of positive and negative power supplies and, finally,
to a substitution of P-channel MOS transistors substituted for
PNP transistors, resulting in Figure 5 in the request for
rehearing. Appellant then points out that even if all of
these changes were made to Nagano’s circuit, the subject
matter of claim 16 is still not reached.
Specifically, appellant cites the following differences:
1. Transistor Q3 does not have its source coupled to
terminal OUT.
2. Transistor Q3 does not have its drain coupled to a
current mirror.
3. The circuit of Figure 5 in the request for rehearing
does not function as a square-law clamping circuit.
4. The current IO in resulting Figure 5 is completely
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007