Appeal No. 96-3106
Application 08/052,015
connections from all of transistor die 12 [column 4, lines 61
to 64], and terminal 11b is an input lead for the input
connections to all of transistor die 12 [column 4, line 65 to
column 5, line 12]. Thus, we conclude that the subject matter
of claim 1 would have been obvious over Sutrina and Granberg.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
We have looked at the references slightly differently
from the Examiner in the above analysis. However, even though
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 for slightly
different reasons than those advanced by the Examiner, our
position is still based on the collective teachings of the
applied references and does not constitute a new ground of
rejection. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263,
267 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2, 150 USPQ
441, 444 n.2 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 2 and 6 through 9, being in the same grouping and
not having been separately argued, fall with claim 1.
Therefore, we affirm the rejection of these claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Sutrina and Granberg.
-11-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007