Ex parte ISOBE et al. - Page 2




              Appeal No.  1999-1640                                                                                    
              Application 08/782,464                                                                                   

                     Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:                                                       
                     1.  An H-bridge circuit comprising:                                                               
                     a load having a first and a second port;                                                          
                     first and second switches coupled to said first and said second port to switch the                
              load;                                                                                                    
                     first and second cascode switching elements coupled between said load and said                    
              first and said second switches;                                                                          
                     wherein said first and second cascode switching elements each comprising at least                 
              one cascode transistor having a base port resistively coupled to a first bias voltage and a              
              collector port clamped with respect to said base port.                                                   

                     The following references are relied upon by the examiner:                                         
              Brannon et al. (Brannon)           5,345,346            Sep. 6, 1994                                     
              Appellants’ admitted prior art in disclosed Figures 1 and 2                                              

                     Claims 1 through 3, 5, 7 through 16, and 18 through 29 stand rejected under    35                 
              U.S.C. § 103.  As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon appellants’ admitted                 
              prior art Figures 1 and 2 in view of Brannon.                                                            
                     Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner, reference is                 
              made to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.                                    







                                                          2                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007