Appeal No. 2003-1262
Application No. 09/620,679
Claims 7 and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Knee.
Claims 8-10, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Esch.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 19, mailed
November 26, 2002) for the Examiner’s reasoning and to the appeal
brief (Paper No. 18, filed September 25, 2002) and the reply
brief (Paper No. 21, filed February 3, 2003) for Appellant’s
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
With regard to the rejection of claims 7 and 23-25,
Appellant’s main point of argument is that Knee does not disclose
a second supply voltage and “ground” cannot be properly
interpreted as a supply voltage (brief, page 6). During the oral
hearing, Appellant pointed to Figure 2A of the application and
argued that the second supply voltage corresponds to VTT 70 and,
therefore, is clearly distinct from ground levels 64.
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner asserts
that zero volt at the ground is still a particular potential or a
supply voltage that is higher than a negative voltage (answer,
page 7). The Examiner apparently relies on the prior art and
Appellant’s disclosure depicting a logic circuit connected
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007