Appeal No. 95-4545
Application No. 08/094220
examiner. Shinohara does indeed make such a suggestion to one
of ordinary skill in the art. Column 3, lines 39-49.
Appellant argues that such a combination would not
achieve his result, of providing a level shift that is immune
to variations in the threshold values and/or gain coefficients
in the FET’s that comprises that circuit. However, such a
result is
not recited. Claims undergoing examination are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and limitations appearing in the specification
are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc).
Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with his
claims and is not persuasive.
Moreover, as long as some motivation or suggestion to
combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a
whole, the law does not require that the references be
combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor. In re
Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007