Appeal No. 1997-1688
Application 08/515,752
shown through evidence that any of the circuits in the prior art
cited against the claims would operate at approximately 3.3 and 5
volts. For example, in discussing the operation of his device at
page 5, Isono refers to relatively high breakdown voltages of 250
and 350 volts and this suggests that Isono would not be operable
at the low voltages intended by appellants. Furthermore, the 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 modifications. In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783, 1784 (Fed. Cir.
1992). The examiner has not established that any one of the
references applied against claim 28 suggests any motivation for,
or desirability of, the change espoused.
Although we will not sustain any of the rejections of claim
28, we agree with the examiner that each of Isono, Misu and
Murayama discloses the switching element and primary protection
device limitations defined in claim 28.
Whereas we will not sustain any of the rejections of claim
28, we will not sustain any of the rejections of dependent claims
29-33 over the same prior art.
REVERSED
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007