Appeal No. 1996-3229
Application 08/271,477
(Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996)(citing W.
L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548,
220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984)).
Appellants argue:
As recited in Claim 25, the present
invention requires only two power supplies, i.e. a
first potential (illustratively VCC) and a second
potential (illustratively VSS). In contrast, Gabara
uses and requires four different power supplies,
VCN, VCP, VSS and VDD, to create its circuit.
(Brief-page 18.)
The Examiner responds:
Under [the] broadest reasonable interpretation, the
first potential and the second potential is seen to
read as VCN and VCP in the Gabara[] reference. It
is clear from col. 2 that the voltages VCN and VCP
of Gabara’s reference are of [a] level appropriate
to activate the transistors 104 & 105 respectively.
It would have been clearly understood by one skilled
in the art that these levels VCN and VCP would each
be in a range including [the] “supply voltage” and
“ground”, respectively. It further would have been
clear to one skilled in the art that using [the]
“supply voltage” and “ground” would reduce the
number of circuit elements, thus, result in lower []
manufacturing cost. In addition, it is notoriously
well-known that conventional voltage generator[s],
which would be used to generate VCN and VCP, provide
a divided voltage between the supply voltage and
ground. Thus, clearly the gates of 104 and 105
would be connected through the respective voltage
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007