Appeal No. 97-0951
Application 08/148,452
There appear to be some minor problems with the claim
language which has not been addressed by the Examiner. In
claims 1 and 14, in "each pair of said switching transistors
being coupled through a respective node to a respective one
of said inverter circuits," the word "pair" should be
deleted. In claim 3, the first and second current source
transistors appear to refer to the same elements as the
first and second transistors in claim 1; if not, it is not
clear what the first and second transistors in claim 1 refer
to.
Claims 1, 3, and 14
We have trouble understanding the Examiner's rejection
because the Examiner merely states that "Wong discloses the
claimed device except for a current limiting transistor, a
current regulator circuit and the use of bi-polar
transistors" (FR3) and does not provide an
element-by-element comparison between the claim elements and
the elements in Wong. The way the claims are intended to be
read on Wong is not clear. Claims 1 and 14 are directed to
the slew rate control circuit of figures 2 and 3. We
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007