Ex Parte WILLIAMS et al - Page 7



          Appeal No. 2000-0131                                                        
          Application No. 08/800,972                                                  

          case of obviousness.  Only those arguments actually made by                 
          Appellants have been considered in this decision.  Arguments which          
          Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Brief have          
          not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].                                
               In response to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of                 
          representative independent claim 16, Appellants initially contend           
          (Brief, page 6) that, contrary to the Examiner’s position, Fuller           
          does not provide for a “deadband” of voltages across the terminals          
          of switch MOSFET 82 within which neither of the body bias generator         
          transistors 84 and 86 is turned on.  After careful review of the            
          Fuller reference in light of the arguments of record, we are in             
          agreement with the Examiner’s position as expressed in the Answer.          
               As pointed out by the Examiner (Answer, page 9), the language          
          of claim 16 does not require a “deadband” of voltages but, rather,          
          only that the body of the switch MOSFET be biased to the lower of           
          the drain voltage or source voltage “... when a difference between          
          said drain and source voltages exceeds a predetermined level.”  We          
          agree with the Examiner (id.) that the claimed “predetermined               











Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007