Appeal No. 2002-0343
Application No. 09/226,630
that a basis in the art does not exist for modifying Peregrim to
use a single MOSFET in conjunction with a silicon controlled
rectifier (SCR) as set forth in claim 1, and that there is a lack
of motivation for modifying Peregrim.
We agree with appellant’s arguments. The examiner’s “common
knowledge and common sense” are not acceptable substitutes for
evidence in the record to support the examiner’s conclusion that
it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to use a MOSFET
in lieu of the bipolar transistor in Peregrim. In re Lee,
277 F.3d 1338, 1344-45, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434-35 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
For this reason, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 7
is reversed. The obviousness rejection of claim 8 is reversed
because the teachings of Swallow do not cure the noted
shortcoming in the teachings of Peregrim.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007