Appeal 2007-0803
Application 10/197,801
Moreover, referring to the approach followed at pages 6 through 11 in
the Answer, where the Examiner details the Examiner’s responsive
arguments to those positions set forth in the Brief, we agree with the
Examiner’s initial observation at page 6 that the subject matter of
representative independent claim 1 on appeal essentially defines within its
own terms the meaning to be attributed of the active and standby states
claimed. The Examiner then goes into great detail persuasively explaining
the correlations and functionalities of claimed features to the teachings and
showings principally at columns 7 and 8 and the showing at figure 5 of
Hirano. Significantly, the Examiner goes into great detail to explain the
correlations of the teachings to claimed active and standby states. Equally
significant as well is the Examiner’s discussion beginning at page 8, which
is again repeated through the discussion up to the top of page 10 of the
Answer, that alternatively takes the position that the disclosed and intended
meaning of the terminology, even though it is not recited in claim 1 on
appeal, is also met by the Examiner’s explanation.
It is equally important here to note that the subject matter recited in
the wherein clause at the end of claim 1 on appeal reciting that “an absolute
value of the threshold voltage of the first MOS transistor is set to be a lower
value in the active state than in the standby state” is also directly addressed
particularly by the Examiner’s discussion at pages 9 and 10 of the Answer.
We also make note here the discussion at page 5 of the Specification
as filed relating to acknowledged prior art at lines 11 through 19. This
portion of the Specification indicates that it was known that an active state
relates to a switching operation that is performed and a standby state relates
to the switching operation that is not performed. Significantly as well, the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013