Appeal No. 97-1320
Application 08/431,001
action, Paper No. 2, pages 2-3) or "for the purpose of
stabilizing the collector current of the input circuit"
(Examiner's Answer, page 4). In the Final Rejection, the
Examiner finds that "[t]he problem with the Prior Art (i.e.
Fig. 1) is that when the input circuit is activated the
waveshaping circuit is adversely influenced by the low output
resistance of the input circuit" (Final Rejection, page 2) and
concludes that "one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to increase the output resistance of the input
circuit [with an emitter resistor as taught by Sedra & Smith]"
(Final Rejection, page 3).
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 4) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 11) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
Examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper No. 10) (pages
referred to as "Br__") for a statement of Appellants'
position.
OPINION
Appellants argue (Br6): "The rejection of Claims 1-5 is
flawed for two reasons: (1) the examiner utilized hindsight
to reconstruct the claimed invention from the prior art of
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007