Appeal No. 97-0951
Application 08/148,452
very sharp cutoff and high temperature stability . . ."
(FR3). This does not explain why one skilled in the art
would have sought to apply the current limiting transistor
for a linear voltage regulator in Banura to the slew rate
control circuit of Wong or how the references would be
combined. While it is true that the test for obviousness is
not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference, this does not mean that finding isolated features
is all that is needed to establish obviousness. There must
be some explanation how the teachings of the references are
proposed to be combined to produce the claimed invention.
The Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 14 is
reversed.
Claims 4, 15, and 17-24
Claim 4 depends on claim 3 which depends on claim 1 and
additionally recites a regulator circuit. Independent
claims 15 and 19 are directed to the regulator circuit
itself.
The Examiner states (FR3-4):
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007