Appeal No. 97-0951
Application 08/148,452
As discussed in connection with the rejection of
claim 1, it is not known how the Examiner is applying Wong.
In particular, we do not know which inverters in Wong the
Examiner considers to be the claimed inverters and which
elements the Examiner considers to be the pair of switching
transistors. Under either of the interpretations we
presented, we find no motivation to add a clamping circuit
as shown in Yamate. Further, we find no motivation to add
current limiting transistors as recited in claims 1 and 5.
As discussed in connection with the rejection of claim 15,
we find no discussion in the Examiner's rejection of the
limitations of the regulator circuit and, thus, we find no
motivation to add a regulated voltage source as recited in
claim 16. For all these reasons, the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection
of claims 2, 5-13, and 16 is reversed.
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007