Appeal No. 1998-0916
Application 08/331,435
similar in scope, and each claim is rejected on any one of
Uenishi, Jacobson or Kayser. The examiner supports the
rejections by referring to Figure 1 of Uenishi, Figure 1 of
Jacobson and Figure 4a of Kayser [final rejection].
With respect to Uenishi, appellant argues that Uenishi
does not meet the asymmetrical charging and discharging
required by the recitations of claims 1 and 10. The examiner
responds that the asymmetry feature is not recited in the
claims. With respect to Jacobson, appellant argues that the
switch for discharging the gate is not directly connected to
the driver output as required by claims 1 and 10. The
examiner responds that the first switch in Jacobson is
“directly between said first power supply input and said
output” as claimed. With respect to Kayser, appellant argues
that Kayser lacks the passive overshoot circuit connected as
recited in claims 1 and 10. The examiner responds that
resistor 51 in Kayser is the claimed passive overshoot
circuit.
We agree with each of appellant’s arguments. The
recitation of a first switch directly between the first power
supply and the output and a second switch between a second
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007