Appeal No. 95-3876 Application 08/222,009 In summary, I would affirm the § 103 rejection of claims 9-14 based on Iwata in view of Hayashi and would reverse the § 103 rejection of claim 8 based on those references in which decision Judge Barrett concurs in a separate opinion. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED-IN-PART ) ) BOARD OF PATENT JOHN C. MARTIN ) APPEALS Administrative Patent Judge ) AND ) INTERFERENCES ) BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring. I join Administrative Patent Judge (APJ) Martin's opinion. I, too, interpret appellants' argument to be that one function of the "control means," "removing the enabling voltage at the gate [of the insulated gate bipolar transistor IGBT] in response to a flash terminating signal," is not performed, rather than an argument under 35 U.S.C. § 112, - 22 -Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007