Appeal 2007-1648
Application 10/631,098
floating. These arguments are similar to the arguments Appellant presented
with respect to independent claim 14. As discussed supra, we find ample
evidence of record to support the Examiner’s conclusion that fabricating
Au’s circuit using SOI was within the skill of the art of the time of the
invention. Similarly, Appellant has presented no evidence to rebut the
Examiner’s finding that the teachings of Brady could also be implemented
using SOI technology. Thus, Appellant’s arguments have not convinced us
that the Examiner erred in finding that one skilled in the art could implement
Brady and Au’s circuit using SOI technology.
On page 19 and 20 of the Brief, Appellant makes statements which
recite the limitations of claims 26 through 30 and state “As shown above, Au
and Ker are not properly combinable with Brady. Therefore, the combined
teachings of Ker, Au and Brady would not teach or suggest to one of
ordinarily skilled in the art the features that is [sic] defined by dependent
claim 26.” (Br. 20). Appellant’s statements regarding these claims do not
provide separate argument as to why the limitations of claims 26 through 30
are separately patentable. Thus, we do not consider Appellant’s statements
on page 19 and 20 regarding claims 26 through 30 to be separate arguments
under 37 C.F.R.§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii), and we group these claims with claim 24.
Nonetheless, as discussed above, Appellant has not convinced us that the
Examiner erred in finding that one skilled in the art could implement Brady
and Au’s circuit using SOI technology.
Regarding claim 25, Appellant states, on page 19 of the Brief, that
claim 25 recites that the first circuit control network and the second circuit
control network comprise at least one MOSFET. Appellant asserts that the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013