Ex parte BLUM et al. - Page 2

          Appeal No. 1997-0058                                                        
          Application No. 08/300,399                                                  

          occurs during switching.  In particular, the circuit imposes a              
          maximum on the slew rate (or slope) of the current sense                    
          signal.  Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and               
          reads as follows:                                                           
               1.   A circuit comprising:                                             
               an amplifier having a controlled maximum slew rate,                    
          connected for receiving a current sense signal including a                  
          meaningful portion proportional to a current in a switched                  
          power device and a current spike portion and for generating an              
          output, the maximum slew rate of said amplifier being set so                
          as to attenuate the current spike portion without attenuating               
          the meaningful portion of the current sense signal; and                     
               a switching regulator controller connected to receive                  
          the output of said amplifier and to control the switched power              
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          White                         4,928,220                May  22,             
          Kusano                        5,192,884                Mar. 09,             
          Sasaki et al. (Sasaki)        5,382,838                Jan. 17,             
                                                  (filed Mar. 18, 1993)               
               Claims 1 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as              
          being unpatentable over White.                                              
               Claims 2, 5, 13, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35                    

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007