Appeal No. 96-3442
Application No. 08/253,884
In response, the Examiner (Answer, page 7) argues that
the validity of the proposed combination of teachings does not
rest on how Shin operates in its disclosed environment but
rather whether the modification of the prior art with the
driver of Shin would impede the operation of such prior art.
The Examiner concludes that since the role of a driver is to
output high and low outputs, the use of a driver such as in
Shin in the prior art bootstrap circuit illustrated in
Appellant’s Fig. 1 would not impede the operation of such
bootstrap circuit, thereby making the combination a proper
one.
We have carefully considered the arguments of Appellant
and the Examiner. Although we reject Appellant’s argument
that the Examiner’s proposed combination fails because of lack
of teaching of a bootstrap circuit in the secondary Shin
reference, we agree with Appellant that the disclosure of Shin
is totally lacking in motivation for modification of the prior
art since Shin is not concerned in any manner with boosting
output voltage. The Examiner’s reasoning that the circuit of
Shin would not impede the operation of the prior art bootstrap
circuit can not alone provide proper basis for the proposed
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007