Appeal 2007-1648
Application 10/631,098
Second Issue:
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in finding that Au’s circuit modified to be implemented in SOI teaches the
body of the MOSFET being floating with respect to the underlying substrate.
The Examiner finds that implementing Au’s circuit using SOI will result in
the body of the MOSFET being floating. Appellant argues that Au’s circuit
can not be implemented using SOI, reasoning that the SCR can not be made
in SOI and that Au’s circuit requires the body to be grounded. Appellant
does not provide evidence to support these assertions. Further, as discussed
supra, the Examiner has provided evidence to show that SCRs and
MOSFETs can be implemented in SOI technology. (Fact 10.) Accordingly,
Appellant has not convinced us that the Examiner erred in finding that Au’s
circuit modified to be implemented in SOI teaches that the body of the
MOSFET will be floating with respect to the underlying substrate.
Appellant states, on page 11 of the Brief:
Claims 17 and 32 define that the circuit control network limits the
body to a reference voltage. As shown above, the teachings of Au
cannot transfer to an SOI environment. Therefore, the combined
teachings of Au and Brady would not teach or suggest to one
ordinarily skilled in the art the features that are defined by dependent
claims 17 and 32. Thus, it is Appellants [sic] position that dependent
claims 17 and 32 are independently patentable on their own over the
prior of record.
On page 11 and 12 of the Brief, Appellant makes similar statements
which recite the limitations of claim 17, 18, 32 through 36, without
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013