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 “predeterminedPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007