Appeal No. 95-0648
Application 08/001,199
Appellants’ acknowledged prior art shown in Figs. 7 and 8 and described at pages 1-7 of their
specification.
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
acknowledged prior art in view of Okado and Mihara.
The appealed claims also stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of Kumagai in view of
Okado and Mihara.
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellants with regard to the propriety of
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are set forth in the final rejection (Paper No. 8), the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 13), a supplemental examiner’s answer (Paper No.15) and a second
supplemental examiner’s answer (Paper No. 19) and the appellants’ second substitute brief on
appeal (Paper No. 18). The respective positions of the examiner and the appellants with regard to
the obviousness double patenting rejection are set forth in the supplemental examiner’s answer
and appellants’ second substitute brief on appeal.
Appellant's Invention
Appellants’ device is illustrated in Fig. 9. It comprises a short protective circuit having a
control terminal G, a first transistor 10, and a second transistor 20. The control terminal is
connected to the control electrodes of the first and second transistors; the first electrode of the
first transistor is connected to the first electrode of the second transistor; and the second electrode
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007