Appeal No. 96-2722
Application 08/281,168
invention was made in light of the collective teachings of applicants’ admitted prior art, Gray and
Meyer, and Bennett.
We agree with the examiner (Answer, pages 5 to 6) that the ordinarily skilled artisan looking at
the combined teachings and suggestions of applicants’ admitted prior art, Gray and Meyer, and Bennett
would have modified applicants’ admitted prior art of figure 10 by replacing the resistor R1 with a FET
transistor as taught by Gray and Meyer and Bennett. We also agree with the examiner (Answer,
pages 5 to 6) that although the circuits of Gray and Meyer and Bennett are "upside down" with respect
to prior art Figure 10, it would further have been obvious in light of applicants’ admitted prior art Figure
12 (which is "right side up") to make the connections between the transistors as claimed. We note that
while appellants aver that the structure and connections of the recited invention are neither taught nor
suggested by Gray and Meyer and/or Bennett (Brief, pages 6 to 7), appellants have not rebutted the
examiner’s reliance upon Figure 12 of applicants’ specification (which is admitted prior art) as teaching
or suggesting the recited structure and connections.
The most critical issue in this case before us is whether or not the applied prior art would have
taught or suggested replacing Figure 10's resistor R1 with MOS transistor(s) (Q8-Q10). Appellants,
through their representative, admitted at the Oral Hearing of August 5, 1999, that it would have been
obvious to replace resistor R1 with the FET of Gray and Meyer or Bennett. The question thus
becomes whether or not it would have been obvious to use a MOS transistor. The examiner (Answer,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007