Appeal No. 1998-0441
Application 08/713,089
The most relevant of these references is Anderson,
which discloses a ring oscillator with a voltage
compensation circuit that "provides a compensated supply
voltage at node 44 to each of the inverters in the ring
oscillator 12" (col. 2, lines 51-52). However, Appellants
argue that "Anderson fails to disclose or suggest the use of
constant current elements disposed between the series-
connected inverter circuits" (Br24). The Examiner has
failed to advance any reasoning why one of ordinary skill in
the art would have sought to apply the voltage compensation
circuit of Anderson into a ring oscillator circuit having
constant current elements and, thus, has failed to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness. The other references are
less relevant than Anderson. Therefore, the rejection of
claims 2, 3, 7-9, 11-14, 16, and 17 is reversed.
Claim 19
Claim 19 is directed to a non-volatile memory device
including "the oscillator circuit according to claim 7." We
construe claim 19 as a dependent claim for fee calculation
purposes although it would be equally possible to interpret
it as an independent claim which incorporates by reference
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007