Appeal No. 1999-0853
Application No. 08/709,869
by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a
certain thing may result for a given set of circumstances is
not sufficient." Id. citing Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto,
Co., 948 F.3d 1264, 1269,
20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Upon careful review of Shimizu, we fail to find that
Shimizu teaches:
an FET (23 or 36) connected to conduct between the output
of the first circuit and one of the power supply
terminals . . . the channel type of the FET, the phase of
its gate signal with respect to the output of the first
circuit, and the polarity of the power supply terminal
being selected to turn on the FET during a switching
transition near the knee of the transfer curve having the
two parallel paths
as recited in Appellants' claim 1. Rather, we find that
Shimizu illustrates three inverters (6,7 & 8) with 8out
connected to the gate of 10 via 10G, 6 connected to the
out
source of 10 via 10S and power supply 11 connected to the
drain of 10 via 10D. See Shimizu Figure 1 and disclosure page
5, line 19 through page 6, line 17. We also find that
Shimizu's figures 2 and 3 are disclosed as a prior art circuit
and a waveform illustrating the operation of the prior art
Schmitt circuit. See page 10, lines 1-3 of Shimizu. We agree
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007