Appeal No. 95-5121
Application 08/018,575
According to the examiner, it would have been obvious
to reverse Le’s p-n order as taught by Sei because this requires
a large voltage difference to turn each transistor on and this in
turn makes the system largely noise tolerant. Examiner’s Answer
at 3. Appellants argue that Sei did not suggest such a
modification because Sei operates on CMOS components whereas Le
employs power FETs.
The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the
manner suggested by the examiner does not make the modification
obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d
1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In the present case, we find that Sei did not suggest
the desirability of modifying Le as proposed by the examiner.
Sei employs logic FETs, using logic level signals in a logic
device. The p-n order may or not be reversed depending on the
needs of the logic device. Column 5, lines 23-49. This is
insufficient to suggest reversing the p-n order of Le’s power
FETs.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007