Appeal No. 95-4531
Application No. 07/939,892
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sedra in view of Eden
and Davis.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the3
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 26.
Sedra discloses a resistor and a diode in series between a
positive voltage and ground (Figures 4.15 and P4.1). According
to the examiner (Answer, page 3):
Eden shows a “capacitance substantially higher
than that of the capacitive load” in Figure 1, element
10 (see also page 2, lines 52-57). It would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the
time of the invention, to have added the capacitor 10
in parallel with Sedra et al.’s diode for the purpose
of increasing switching speed as taught by Eden on page
2, lines 55-58.
Appellants argue (Brief, pages 5 and 6) that the circuits
in Figures 4.15 and P4.1 of Sedra do not perform any switching
functions because both figures show a diode and a resistor
3Neither of the reply briefs (paper numbers 22 and 24)
was entered by the examiner. Appellants’ Petition to the
Commissioner (paper number 26) was dismissed (paper number 27).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007