Appeal No. 1999-1553
Application No. 08/567,379
Grob, Basic Electronics, Fifth Edition, page 560, published by McGraw Hill,
Inc., NY (1984).
Additionally, the examiner relies on appellant’s admitted prior art [APA]
depicted in Figures 1 and 2 of the instant application.
Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over APA in view of Uramoto, Nakayama and Grob.
The positions of appellant and the examiner are laid out in the briefs and answer,
respectively.
OPINION
The examiner’s position is that APA discloses the claimed subject matter but for the
claimed coupling means. This is not surprising since appellant’s improvement over the
prior art is the addition of the coupling means to make the noise common throughout the
noise susceptible circuits in order to have these circuits operate with immunity to the noise.
Since the difference between APA Figure 2 and appellant’s invention depicted in
Figure 4 of the instant application is in the coupling means, specifically the gate, drain and
supply capacitors shown in Figure 4, the examiner turns to prior art showing each of these
various capacitors. That is, Nakayama discloses a gate capacitor C2 and the examiner
says it would have been obvious to add a gate capacitor to APA Figure 2 “for
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007