Appeal No. 95-3876
Application 08/222,009
rejection, likewise does not result in such a
feature. Accordingly, the Iwata et al[.] patent
does not render the subject matter of claim 14
unpatentable, whether considered alone or in
combination with the Nikkei Electronics publication
[Hayashi]. [Emphasis added.]
Unlike Judge Torczon in his dissenting opinion, I do not view
this argument as implicitly invoking the sixth paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112. Appellants' description of their invention
as the "concept of removing an enabling voltage at the gate of
the FET in response to a flash terminating command,” coupled
with the absence of any express reference to § 112, ¶ 6 or an
assertion that Iwata's disclosed circuit 18 is not the same as
or equivalent to appellants' claimed "control means,"
persuades me
appellants are arguing that Iwata's control voltage generating
circuit 18 fails to perform the recited function of "removing
the enabling voltage at the gate [of the IGBT] in response to
a flash terminating signal," which function appellants would
have us construe in light of their disclosure as requiring
that the voltage at the gate of the IGBT be "positively
removed." What appellants mean by "positively removed" is
explained as follows in the reply brief (at 2, lines 10-20):
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007