Appeal No. 96-3040
Application 08/135,650
1 on Cho’s transistor 43. Transistor 43 is an FET transistor. We fail to see a structural
distinction between these two transistors.
Appellants argue that the dividing means of claim 1 cannot be met by the transistor
42 and constant current source 41 of Cho. With respect to the voltage divider aspect of
claim 1, the examiner argues that transistor 42 and current source 41 each have a
resistance value associated therewith, and therefore, they serve to divide the voltage
between transistor 43 and ground in Cho. Appellants point to resistors R1 and R2 of their
Figure 1 as disclosing the voltage divider of claim 1. R1 is shown as a diode connected
transistor, and R2 is shown as a schematic resistor. Cho’s first resistor is shown as a
diode connected transistor, and the second resistor is shown as a current source. A
schematic of a resistor does not disclose any specific structure but only that the function of
resistance is carried out. We agree with the examiner that any conventional form of
resistance, including a current source, would be considered a structural equivalent for the
resistor shown in appellants’ Figure 1.
Appellants argue that transistor 42 is not equivalent to transistor 501 of their Figure
1 because transistor 501 has its gate coupled to a signal designated as /VDCEP in the
figure. Since claim 1 does not recite the manner in which the resistor means are
interconnected with the other components of the claim, we see no reason to read such
specific structure into the claim under the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007