Appeal No. 96-4027
Application 08/392,663
references fail to teach the current squaring structure comprising the transistor arrangement having first
and second diode connected transistors with a relatively large current source connected to a fourth
transistor creating a relatively constant V thereby imposing the change in the two V drops built-upbe be
across first and second diode connector transistors across the base emitter of a third transistor.
Again the Examiner has not responded to this argument. We fail to find any teaching or
suggestion in the cited references of these limitations. It is the burden of the Examiner to
establish why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed invention by the
reasonable teachings or suggestions found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the artisan
contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6
(Fed. Cir. 1983). In addition, the Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the prior art may be
modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221
USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "Additionally, when deter-mining obviousness, the claimed
invention should be considered as a whole; there is no legally recognizable 'heart' of the invention."
Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int’l,
Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80
(1996), citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007