Appeal No. 95-4531
Application No. 07/939,892
been rendered obvious by the single diode teachings of Sedra. We
agree with appellants. The obviousness rejection of claims 7 and
15 is reversed.
Turning lastly to claims 3, 10 through 13 and 25, the
examiner cited Davis for “a ‘diode-connected transistor’ (36) in
Figure 1.” (Answer, page 5 and 6). We agree with appellants’
argument (Brief, page 14) that Davis does not make up “for the
failings of the Sedra circuits of Figures P4.1 and 4.15.” The
obviousness rejection of claims 3, 10 through 13 and 25 is
reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007