Appeal No. 2001-1827
Application No. 08/696,404
independent claim 13 since we do not find express support maintaining the transistor in
a “just on” state or minimizing the current flow. Therefore, this argument is not
persuasive. Appellant argues that the amount of current of the invention is minimized
relative to amount of current used in the operation of the admitted prior art. (See brief at
page 14.) Again, we do not find clear support in the language of independent claim 13
to support this argument.
Appellant argues that Eaton’s Figure 3 circuit provides a voltage limited to slightly
more than one threshold voltage below Vcc of Eaton to provide a stable voltage source
for use within an IC. Appellant argues that just because Eaton discloses a reference
voltage generating circuit does not establish that Eaton suggests maintaining a gate
voltage “just on” or “just off” to control saturation issues in gate switching. (See brief at
page 14.) Again, we do not find appellant’s argument commensurate with the language
of independent claim 13. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that there is no motivation or suggestion in the AAPA and
Eaton to provide the claimed invention. (See brief at page 15.) We disagree with
appellant. The examiner has provided a line of reasoning for the combination at page 6
of the answer. Appellant argues that Eaton does not disclose “a reference voltage
provided at the gate of a first transistor at or near a voltage potential of a first line
voltage . . . to maintain the first transistor in a ‘just on’ state”. (Brief at page 15.) As
discussed above, we do not find appellant’s argument commensurate in scope with the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007