Appeal No. 96-2722
Application 08/281,168
We turn next to the question of the obviousness of claims 13 to 25 and 36 to 53 under § 103.
Each of independent claims 13, 36, and 47 and their corresponding dependent claims on appeal recites
the details of an inverter. More specifically, these claims call for an inverter which outputs one power-
supply potential (V GND) when the input potential (V ) is closer to another power-supply potential (V ) IN DD
than a threshold (V ), and outputs the another power-supply potential (V ) when the input potentialTH DD
(V ) is closer to the one power-supply potential (VIN GND) than the threshold (V ). See claims 13, 36, TH
and 47 on appeal. These claims also call for a voltage drop means (resistor R ) and a switching means
12
(transistor Q ).
64
As argued by appellants (Brief, page 14; Reply Brief, pages 6 to 7) the voltage drop means,
switching means, and inverter operate in concert together to achieve an important aspect of appellants’
invention of providing a high threshold voltage thereby allowing a lower resistance value (also reducing
resistor size) for the voltage drop means to be used. We find that the applied prior art fails to teach or
suggest such an inverter. Further, none of the prior art applied, taken singly or in combination, would
have suggested modifying the applied prior art with an inverter to achieve the goal of providing a high
threshold voltage and thus a low resistor value. We agree with appellants, and accordingly we cannot
sustain the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as to claims 13 to 25 and 36 to 53.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007