Appeal No. 2004-0593
Application No. 09/606,688
7, line 9).
The claimed subject matter does not exclude the amplification
effect of Rempfer; indeed, the claims expressly include it as a
possibility by acknowledging that the mirroring factor may be
present. Furthermore, a review of Rempfer figure 4 reveals the
same circuitry as claimed by the appellant. We find no error in
the examiner’s conclusion that it functions as claimed. Again,
the appellant has provided no convincing evidence otherwise.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by this argument.
Next, the appellant urges that dependent claims 3, 9, and 15
recite that ones of the first, second, third, and fourth
transistors of an input stage are smaller than other ones of
first, second, third, and fourth transistors of other stages.
Claims 4, 10, and 16 provide the reverse, that the input stage
transistors are larger. (Appeal Brief, page 7, lines 15-25).
Rempfer, it is urged, does not meet the claimed limitations
in that it only discloses differences between transistors within
the one stage. (Appeal Brief, page 8).
However, Rempfer describes a stage where the first transistor
pair 30 is N times larger than the second transistor pair 36.
(Fig. 4, col. 3, lines 8-16). This pattern is repeated for
additional amplification (Fig. 7; col. 3, lines 60-65). As a
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007