Appeal No. 96-2614
Application 08/098,740
reasonable suggestion for using transistors as resistors. The
transistors disclosed in Carroll are used only for switching
purposes. While Carroll does discuss the equivalent
resistance of a field effect transistor, it is only in the
context of how it affects the charge time of a switched
capacitor and switch induced charge injection. The examiner
has not pointed to any portion of Carroll which reasonably
would have suggested using a biased transistor not for its
switching capabilities but as a resistor.
The examiner’s important finding that it was notoriously
well known in the art to use biased transistors as resistors
is not supported by adequate factual evidence. Accordingly,
the rejection of claims 5 and 9 over the admitted prior art
and Carroll cannot be sustained.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-22 over the
admitted prior art, Carroll, and Pirez also cannot be
sustained because as applied by the examiner Pirez does not
make up for the
above-discussed deficiencies of the admitted prior art and
Carroll. The examiner has not articulated how Pirez would
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007