Appeal No. 1997-1034
Application No. 08/279,135
which Miyaji needs.” (See answers at page 4.) We find that the mere conclusion in
hindsight that the combination would have been “convenient” is not a convincing reason for
the combination.
Appellant analyzes the language of claim 1 with respect to threshold voltage and
argues that “Miyaji proposes the opposite of the claims.” (See brief at page 4.) We agree
with appellant that the combination of the teachings of Miyaji and Klein would not produce
the invention as recited in claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1
over the combination of Miyaji and Klein nor will we sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 3 and 5.
Similarly, Ichinose teaches that the pull-up transistors have a higher threshold
voltage than the threshold voltage of the access transistors. Therefore, analogous to the
discussion above, the combination of Ichinose and Klein would not teach or
suggest the invention set forth in claim 1 nor its dependent claims 2-6. Since claim 15
contains the same limitations as claim 1 discussed above, we will not sustain the rejection
of claim 15 nor its dependent claims 16, 17, 19 and 20.
The Examiner has not identified any teaching or suggestion in Harari which would
remedy the deficiency discussed above in the combination of Miyaji or Ichinose and Klein.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejections of claims 4 and 18.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007