Appeal No. 96-1203
Application 08/298,721
transistor] reduces the input impedance of transistor 11 with
only a minor affect on the transconductance of transistor 11" was
a discovery which would have been unexpected to the person of
ordinary skill in the art [brief, page 6]. Finally, appellants
argue that Redfern has no recognition of the problem of quiescent
power dissipation so that Redfern provides no motivation to
equate input impedances, especially by modifying the N-channel
gate length as recited in the independent claims [brief, page 7].
Since the obviousness issue must be decided on the record
before us, we are constrained to reverse the rejection as set
forth by the examiner. We basically agree with all of
appellants’ arguments as set forth in the briefs. Redfern’s
suggestion to equate transconductance of the N-channel and
P-channel transistors in an inverter cannot be said to suggest
equating the input impedances of the N-channel and P-channel
transistors of an amplifier. Although the examiner is correct in
his assertion that any change in the dimensions of the transistor
gates will have an effect on the transconductance and the
impedance of a transistor, this general assertion does not
suggest that input impedances of the N-channel and P-channel
transistors should be made equal.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007