Appeal No. 97-0951
Application 08/148,452
address the claim limitations. We agree with Appellants'
argument that the configuration of the claimed regulator
circuit is not taught or hinted at by Wong, Banura, or
Brewer. The Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness. The rejection of claims 4, 15, and
17-24 is reversed.
Claims 2, 5-13, and 16
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and recites a voltage
clamping means coupled to the nodes. Independent claim 5 is
similar to claim 14, but recites a voltage clamping circuit
coupled to the nodes between the inverters and a control
circuit.
The Examiner finds that Yamate discloses a clamping
circuit and concludes that it would have been obvious to add
the clamping circuit of Yamate to the slew rate controller
of Wong, as modified by Banura and Brewer. It is noted that
Brewer has not been applied to claim 1; however, since
claim 1 does not have the regulator circuit limitation that
Brewer (apparently) was cited for, we treat this as a
harmless error.
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007