Appeal No. 1998-0441
Application 08/713,089
disclosed current regulation means. Anderson disclosed
current regulation and inverter details. Angiulli et
al disclosed transmission gate and inverter details.
Leonowich disclosed delay and ring oscillator details.
Matsuura disclosed constant voltage source, current
limiting element and inverter details.
The Examiner concludes (EA7):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to have incorporated any known current
control means in the delay stages of a ring oscillator
as claimed. The "motivation" being design option, to
stabilize the frequency of ring oscillators by making
the delay stages constant using known means.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not provided a
suggestion to combine and has failed to offer any reasonable
explanation as to why the combined references render obvious
the rejected claims (Br25-27).
The Examiner's reasoning appears to be that it would
have been obvious to substitute known current control means
for the current control means in Motegi and Sakurai. This
reasoning does not address the deficiencies of Motegi and
Sakurai with respect to the constant voltage circuit.
Appellants address the deficiencies of Anderson,
Dingwall, Angiulli, Leonowich, and Matsuura (Br23-25). The
Examiner does not respond to these arguments.
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007