Appeal No. 2005-0449
Application No. 09/498,559
However, Vargha does not disclose a resistor having a
first terminal coupled to said gate terminal of the
transistor (10) and a second terminal coupled to the
beyond voltage (Vcc+V1) that is derived from said power
supply voltage (Vcc) as claimed. Ko et al teaches in
Figure 2 an active inductor comprising resistors (R2,
R4, R6, R8) coupled between the transistors (MT1-MT4)
and a voltage divider (R1, R3, R5, R7, R9) for
protecting the transistors from a rush currents [sic]
from the voltage source (Vdd). It would have been
obvious to a person having skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to employ the resistor taught by
Ko et al in the circuit of Vargha for the purpose of
protecting the transistor.
We refer to the brief and reply brief as well as to the
answer for a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints
expressed by the appellant and by the examiner concerning the
above noted rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, these rejections cannot be
sustained.
Regarding the section 102 rejection, the appellant argues
that the rejected claims distinguish over Vargha by way of the
independent claim 14 recitation “said MOS transistor is coupled
to said beyond voltage generator so as to bias said MOS
transistor with said beyond voltage and said MOS transistor is
adapted to operate as said active inductor” and by way of the
independent claim 16 recitation “a metal oxide semiconductor
(MOS) transistor adapted to operate as an active inductor that is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007