Appeal No. 2006-2920 Page 15
Application No. 10/813,501
together, we will consider independent claim 8 as the representative claim
for this rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
With respect to representative claim 8, appellants argue that Asada
does not disclose a method of disabling the transistor for a current flow in
one direction and enabling the transistor for a current flow in the opposite
direction [brief, page 7]. Appellants assert that Asada discloses disabling
transistors 10 and 841 responsively to a voltage (resulting from a negative
current) that is less negative than reference Vr and discloses enabling
transistors 10 and 841 in response to a more negative current [id.].
Therefore, appellants conclude that Asada discloses enabling and disabling
transistors 10 and 841 in response to two different values of a negative
current [id.].
We note that the examiner simply restates the same arguments for
claim 1 that we have addressed supra. We agree with appellants’ conclusion
that Asada discloses enabling and disabling transistors 10 and 841 in
response to two different values of a negative current, as discussed supra
[see brief, page 7]. Therefore, we will reverse the examiner’s anticipation
rejection of representative claim 8 for essentially the same reasons argued
by appellants in the briefs. Because dependent claims 9-11 contain the
same limitations as independent claim 8, we will also reverse the examiner’s
anticipation rejection of these claims.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007