Appeal No. 2005-0449
Application No. 09/498,559
biased using a voltage generated on said integrated circuit that
is outside the range of the voltage supplied by a power supply.”
More specifically, it is the appellant’s contention that the
Vargha circuit is not disclosed as being an active inductor and
is not capable of functioning as an active inductor. According
to the appellant, the Vargha circuit actually operates as a
switch and lacks the structure (i.e., the resistor arrangement
disclosed in the subject specification) necessary to bias
patentee’s transistor in such a way as to operate as an active
inductor.
In response to these arguments, the examiner urges:
Figure 1 of Vargha will perform the same function as
the claimed circuit because both circuits have similar
structures. Further, since the gate terminal of the
MOS transistor (12) of Vagha [sic, Vargha] is biased in
the same condition as the gate terminal of the claimed
transistor, i.e., by “a gate voltage (Vcc + V1) outside
the range of a supply voltage (Vcc)”, the circuit of
Vargha would perform the function of an inductor when
the transistor is turned on [answer, page 6].
It is well settled that, where an examiner has reason to
believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for
establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact,
be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner
possesses the authority to require an applicant to prove that the
subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007