Appeal No. 95-3876
Application 08/222,009
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring-in-part and
dissenting-in-part.
The combined teachings of Iwata and Hayashi would
not have rendered the subject matter of claim 14 obvious at
the time
of invention. The remaining claims on appeal properly
incorporate the limitations of claim 14. Consequently, I
would reverse the rejection of all claims, not just the
rejection of claim 8.
The scope of the control means is contested
We must start by construing the claims to define the
scope and meaning of each contested limitation. Gechter v.
Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir.
1997). At the hearing, counsel for Appellants conceded the
combinability of the Iwata and Hayashi references to the
extent that an insulated gate bipolar transistor ("IGBT") may
- 30 -
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007