Appeal No. 95-4531
Application No. 07/939,892
common potential”; b) “a capacitance load....connected
to the collector node”; or c) “the transistor being
biased so that the emitter-base junction of said
transistor is reversed biased”.
To make Figure 8.41 read on this language in claim
6, it would require a complete reorganization of the
circuit elements of the circuit of Figure 8.41 so that
it would not [sic, no] longer perform its emitter
follower function. There is no teaching in Eden to do
this.
We agree with appellants. The obviousness rejection of claims 6
and 14 is reversed.
Turning next to claims 7 and 15, the examiner contends
(Answer, pages 4 and 5) that “[i]t would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to
have substituted Sedra et al.’s single diode with a ‘bipolar
transistor ... with its collector and emitter shorted’ as such a
substitution provides more current to the load and hence a faster
switching speed.” Appellants argue (Brief, page 10) that the
claimed bipolar transistor forward biased at its collector-base
junction, and shorted at its collector and emitter would not have
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007