Ex Parte Torres et al - Page 3




             Appeal No. 2006-1816                                                                                     
             Application No. 10/386,146                                                                               

             multiplexor including a plurality of transmission gates, each transmission gate including                
             a first pass transistor corresponding to a respective signal path of one of the differential             
             inputs,                                                                                                  
                    wherein the multiplexor further includes at least one first blocking element                      
             coupled between a back-gate node of each first pass transistor and a supply voltage to                   
             block a first leakage current path from the back-gate node to the supply voltage, and at                 
             least second blocking element coupled between a gate node of each first pass                             
             transistor and the respective signal path corresponding thereto to block a second                        
             leakage current path from the respective signal path to the first pass transistor.                       

                    The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:                                        
             Ko     5,955,912    Sep. 21, 1999                                                                        
             Graves et al. (Graves) 6,100,719    Aug.  8, 2000                                                        
                    Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 12-15 and 171 stand rejected under the second                               
             paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being indefinite.                                                        
                    Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                            
             being unpatentable over Ko and Graves.                                                                   






                                                                                                                     
                    1The Examiner’s indication of allowability of claim 17 appears to have been intended in absence of
             rejection based on prior art.                                                                            





                                                          3                                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007