Appeal No. 2006-1816
Application No. 10/386,146
gates and clamps the gate-to-source voltages (specification, page 11, lines 11-24), it
blocks the back-gate leakage to the power supply (specification, page 12, lines 10-19).
It is clear from the specification as a whole, and the above noted excerpts specifically,
that although diode D0 through node CHP is connected to the back-gate node of
transistor MP5, it still functions as a blocking element to prevent the input current from
flowing into the first pass transistor MP1.
In view of the above and in light of the specification as a whole, we find that the
MP5 transistor is sufficiently defined as a blocking element and would reasonably
apprize those skilled in the art of the scope of this limitation. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 12-15 and 17 under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Turning now to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the claims, we note that the
Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to be obvious over the
modified teachings of Ko to include the first and the second blocking elements D7 and
MP3 of Graves, as depicted in Figure 1 (answer, pages 3-4). Appellants argue
that Graves relates to a low voltage bus switch circuit for
isolation under power down conditions and has nothing to do with
multiplexors (brief, page 4). The Examiner responds that since
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007