Appeal No. 2001-2459
Application No. 09/277,281
MOS transistors in the pull-down device of claim 7. The fact
that the channel conductivity of the MOS transistors is specified
as either P or N, clearly indicates that the transistors are
field effect transistors and a bipolar junction transistor (BJT)
cannot qualify as a P or N-channel MOS transistor.
Additionally, we observe that the examiner appears to have
corresponded active pull-up resistance 42 in figure 1 of
Intrater, which may alternatively consist of field effect
transistor 46, to the pull-up device of independent claim 1
(answer, page 4). The examiner further corresponds transistor 30
in Figure 1 of Intrater as the pull-down device of independent
claim 7 (answer, page 5). However, the Examiner, in the
“Response to Argument” section, points out that nowhere in the
claims are two MOS transistors recited and Appellants merely
recite a pull-up transistor in claim 1 or a pull-down transistor
in claim 7 (answer, page 6). In these arguments, the Examiner
ignores the recited limitations of both claims 1 and 7 requiring
two MOS transistors in each of the pull-up or the pull-down
devices, respectively. Thus, transistor 30 of Intrater is not
only a bipolar transistor, and NOT a MOS field effect transistor,
but even as a switch, functions differently from the claimed
second MOS transistor in either the pull-up device of claim 1 or
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007