Appeal No. 97-1320
Application 08/431,001
Office action, Paper No. 2, pages 2-3), "for the purpose of
stabilizing the collector current of the input circuit" (EA4),
and "to increase the output resistance of the input circuit"
(FR3)). It appears that the Examiner has made up reasons why
an emitter resistor would be added using Appellants' teaching
of using an emitter resistor as a guide and then said that
such a configuration would be a constant current source as
claimed. This is classic hindsight. It appears to be true,
as observed by Appellants (Br4), that the Examiner was
influenced by the substantial similarity between the admitted
prior art of figure 1 and the claimed circuit of figure 3.
Absent some motivation in the record to do what Appellants
have done, the obviousness rejection must fail.
For the reasons stated above, the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of
claims 1-5 is reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007