Appeal 2007-0157
Application 10/984,584
remainder of the circuit for external processing or influences/loads which we
find suggestive in Hsu also as the Examiner advances.
Appellant argues that the instant application shows an analog circuit to
mirror a voltage and that Hsu and Hodges are not analogous art (Reply Br.
2). We disagree with Appellant’s argument since we do not find it
commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. While Appellant’s
patented claims recite these types of limitations, we do not find that the
instant claims support these arguments. Therefore, Appellant’s argument is
not persuasive.
Appellant argues the express language used by the Examiner in the
discussion of Hodges concerning bus line and capacitance (Reply Br. 3).
While we could speculate about a wealth of specific instances where the
combination may not ring true, we find that there are instances where the
general teachings and suggestions are combinable. Here, we find no specific
field of endeavor to limit the combinability and find that it would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have looked to
the teachings of Hodges with respect to having a input stage and output stage
which are similar as recited in independent claim 1 and claims 2-4, 6-11, 21,
and 22 grouped therewith by Appellant. Therefore, appellants' argument is
not persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and
the claims grouped therewith.
With respect to dependent claim 15 and claims 24-28 and 30 grouped
therewith, Appellant argues that Figure 1 AAPA only shows an environment
for testing voltages, and that the motivation for combining Hsu and Hodges
is not the same and not relevant (Br. 18). We disagree with Appellant and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013