Ex parte HOSOMIZU et al. - Page 22




          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  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007