Appeal No. 1998-1792 Page 4
Application No. 08/453,217
fall with representative claim 1. With this representation in mind, rather than reiterate
the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we address the point of
contention therebetween.
The examiner asserts, "regulator 108 of Marko is a boost regulator because the
generated output reference voltage signal Vref 110 is boosted to a constant voltage level
in regulation independently of the input voltage Vsup 126 of the battery 128. . . ."
(Examiner's Answer at 4.)1 The appellants argue, "Marko does not anticipate a boost
regulator which provides a constant level output voltage independent of the input
voltage, including input voltages which are less than the output regulated voltage, as
defined on page 3 lines 22-25 of the application." (Reply Br. at 3.) They add that the
reference's "first output voltage Vreg 106 loses regulation when the input voltage
Vsup 126 is less than the first output voltage Vreg 106 set point, and the second output
voltage Vref 110 also loses regulation when the input voltage Vsup 126 is less than the
second voltage Vref 110 set point. See column 2 line 67 through column 3 line 17 and
column 5 lines 50-65 of Marko." (Id.)
1We advise the examiner to copy his rejections into his examiner’s answers
rather than merely referring to a “rejection . . . set forth in prior Office Action. . . .”
(Examiner’s Answer at 3.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007