Appeal No. 2003-0163
Application No. 09/400,508
power supply typically lead to undesired changes in the output signal, but the present
invention moderates or eliminates the effect of those undesired changes.” [Emphasis
added.] (See brief at page 7.) While we agree with appellant of what is known in the
art, this does not specifically address the teachings of Lee nor does it establish that
there is not some independence. Here, we find that appellant has set forth the desired
end result in broad claim language which we find to be met by the teachings of Lee.
Furthermore, appellant argues the limitations broadly and in general terms only
addresses the specific teachings of Lee. Therefore, we do not find appellant’s
arguments persuasive.
Appellant argues that there is at least one factor that contributes to the
independence of the output of the current source relative to the supply voltage is the
use of a “p-type transistor (66 or 84) when the voltage supply (62) is a positive voltage.”
(See brief at page 7.) We find no limitation in the language of independent claim 1 that
requires a p-type transistor or that the supply voltage be positive. Therefore, this
argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that Lee does not teach or suggest “controlling noise as with
the present invention.” (See brief at page 8.) We find no limitation in the language of
independent claim 1 that requires controlling noise. Claim 1 merely recites a “low noise
current supply” without reciting any limitation to achieve this function. Therefore, this
argument is not persuasive. Appellant argues that Lee discloses an output voltage that
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007