Appeal No. 96-1203
Application 08/298,721
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore
Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
These showings by the examiner are an essential part of complying
with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.
Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to representative, independent claim 1, the
examiner cites Redfern as suggesting the use of CMOS circuitry
for amplifiers and providing a motivation for equalizing the
transconductance of the transistors [answer, page 3]. The
examiner continues that the equalization of operating parameters
in Redfern would inherently affect the gate widths and lengths of
the transistors [Id.]. Finally, the examiner asserts that any
engineer would have found it obvious to equalize other operating
parameters such as input impedance [ Id.].
Appellants argue that Redfern’s equalization of
transconductance in the P-channel and N-channel transistors of an
inverter does not suggest the equalization of input impedances
for such channel transistors of a heterojunction amplifier
[brief, page 4]. Appellants also argue that the discovery that
“increasing the gate length of transistor 11 [the N-channel
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007