Appeal No. 1997-0058
Application No. 08/300,399
§ 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Kusano.
Claims 8, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over White in view of Sasaki.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 12,
mailed June 11, 1996) and the Supplemental Examiner's Answer
(Paper No. 16, mailed December 26, 1996) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
appellants' Brief (Paper No. 11, filed April 15, 1996) and
Reply Brief (Paper No. 14 , filed October 15, 1996) for1/2
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1
and 6 and also the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 5, 8,
11 through 13, 16, and 17.
Claim 1 requires "an amplifier." The examiner asserts
(Answer, page 4) that White's elements 15, 44, 40, and 41 form
a gain stage having a controlled slew rate. The examiner
later argues (Answer, page 8) that the amplifier is elements
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007