Appeal No. 2001-2660
Application 09/392,341
OPINION
As will be apparent from the following detailed discussion,
we sustain only the rejection of independent claim 9 and reverse
the rejection of the remaining claims on appeal.
From our study of the subject matter of independent claims
1, 4, 5, 8 and 9 on appeal in conjunction with appellants'
admitted prior art, the teachings and suggestions of Magee and
the examiner's reasoning of combinability, we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claims 1, 4, 5 and 8.
From our detailed study of appellants' admitted prior art
Figure 1 and the teachings and suggestions of Magee, we conclude
that the artisan would have had no basis within 35 U.S.C. § 103
to have combined the teachings and suggestions of both of them.
There appears to us to be no independent motivation other than
the examiner's apparent reliance upon prohibited hindsight
derived from appellants' claimed invention and the disclosed
invention for the combination.
According to the description of prior art Figure 1 at
specification page 2, it appears to be known in the art that
undesirable crossbar currents and increased power dissipation
exist in this circuit because the pMOSFET 160 of this figure
does not turn off instantaneously. We are unconvinced that the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007