Appeal No. 2005-0826
Application No. 09/989,563
and “OFF” (no bypass) state would not have been considered equally obvious to one
skilled in the relevant art.
We are not persuaded by appellants’ allegations (Brief at 8-9) that the references
“teach away” from the invention, or that a reference would be rendered unsatisfactory
for its intended purpose. Appellants’ allegations are based on the position that neither
reference teaches a “clamp circuit.” Appellants’ position is untenable, in view of the
evidence of this record, which includes the teachings of Furumochi.
Appellants further submit, in the Reply Brief, that Javanifard does not refer to the
output voltage (Fig. 14) as a test voltage, and does not disclose or suggest any variation
in the output voltage for test purposes.
Appellants seem to appreciate that instant claim 1 is directed to a voltage control
circuit (i.e., an apparatus), rather than a process. How the circuit is intended to be used
does not change the characteristics of the circuit itself. For example, an output voltage
of 5 Volts is 5 Volts regardless of how one may refer to the output. Thus, we agree with
appellants that Javanifard does not refer to the output voltage as a test voltage. We
disagree to any extent that appellants may hold that claiming the charge pump to
generate a “test” supply voltage might distinguish over the applied prior art.
The combination as proposed by the examiner provides a first voltage output
(e.g., from charge pump 320 of Javanifard) and a second, lower voltage output (from
the charge pump) following activation of a bypass device, according to the teachings of
Furumochi. We have considered all of appellants’ arguments in response to the
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007