Appeal No. 96-3442
Application No. 08/253,884
even assuming the combination is proper, such combination
would not result in the invention as claimed.
The Examiner’s response is to argue (Answer, pages 7 and
8) that proper motivation exists for modifying the prior art
with the base clamping circuit of Sobue even though such
motivation would be for a different reason, i.e. prevention of
electrostatic destruction rather than inhibiting bootstrap
capacitor discharge. On this particular point, we agree with
the Examiner’ contention that a showing of proper motivation
does not require that a combination of prior art teachings be
made for the same reason as Appellant to achieve the claimed
invention.
We note in general terms that circuitry utilizing MOS
transistors would benefit from a device which clamps excessive
energy resulting from an internal breakdown condition known as
“electrostatic destruction.” However, we are in agreement
with Appellant that, even assuming that one of ordinary skill
were motivated for any reason to modify the prior art
bootstrap circuit by adding a base clamping circuit such as in
Sobue, the combination would not result in the invention as
claimed. We note that Appellant’s claim 8 recites
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007