Appeal No. 96-2722
Application 08/281,168
suggested by the applied prior art. The examiner states that Aoyama suggests connecting plural
transistors in order to increase resistance (Answer, page 7), and appellants disagree (Reply Brief, page
6) stating that Aoyama fails to show gates being connected in common.
We are in agreement with the examiner that the general concept of using plural
resistors/transistors connected together to achieve a higher resistance value is known in the art. We are
also in agreement with the examiner that employing plural transistors to achieve a high resistance would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, especially in light of the recognition in the art (e.g.,
see Sedra & Smith) that it is difficult to obtain high resistance values with transistors. Because it is
known to use transistors in place of resistors (see Aoyama), and because it is known to increase
resistance by putting plural resistors in series, we find that it would have been obvious to increase
resistance by using plural transistors as shown by Aoyama. We agree with the examiner (Answer, page
8) that the specific connections and configurations of transistor resistive elements (e.g., gates connected
in common) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the transistor art.
With respect to dependent claims 2 to 12 and 27 to 35, appellants rely on their arguments as to
independent claims 1 and 26. Since appellants present no separate arguments as to claims 2 to 12 and
27 to 35, these claims fall with parent claims 1 and 26, discussed supra.
Rejection of Claims 13 to 25 and 36 to 53 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007