Appeal No. 2006-2034 Page 4
Application No. 10/744,801
temperature characteristic of transistor 206 was changed." (Examiner's Answer at 5.)
He also alleges, "The current I4 is a function of at least of [sic] the process characteristic
of transistor 304 because the value of I4 will vary if the characteristic of transistor 304
were changed." (Id.) The appellants argue, "In accordance with the teachings of Ogura
and contrary to the Examiner's contentions, the current I4 in sense amplifier 22 is based
on the characteristics of an NPN bipolar transistor rather than on characteristics of an
NMOS . . . transistor device." (Reply Br. at 2.)
"In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the independent claims at issue to determine their scope. Second,
we determine whether the construed claims are anticipated." Ex parte Wang, No. 2003-
0513, 2004 WL 4978835, at *2 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. 2004).
A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
"Analysis begins with a key legal question — what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). Here, independent claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations:
the reference circuit being operative to generate a first reference signal
and a second reference signal, the first reference signal being a function
of at least one of a process characteristic, a voltage characteristic and a
temperature characteristic of the reference NMOS device, and the second
reference signal being a function of at least one of a process
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013