Ex parte INOUE - Page 7

          Appeal No. 1997-2844                                                        
          Application No. 08/242,881                                                  

               not an argument as to why the claims are separately                    
               patentable.  (Underlining added for emphasis)                          
          Therefore, we will affirm the anticipation rejection of claim               
               Regarding the obviousness rejection of claim 4 over                    
          Stakely, appellant argues (Reply Brief, page 2) that "nothing               
          in Stakely et al. shows, teaches, or suggests that it is                    
          obvious to include the comparator, constant current circuit                 
          and switching circuit in addition to the voltage divider in a               
          one chip semiconductor integrated circuit."  However, as                    
          asserted by the examiner (Answer, page 7, and Supplemental                  
          Answer, page 2), it is well known in the art to form multiple               
          elements on the same semiconductor chip to match or make                    
          uniform the effects of process parameters.  Further, the                    
          examiner's rejection of claim 4 is not a hindsight                          
          reconstruction based on information from applicant's own                    
          specification, as contended by appellant (Supplemental Reply                
          Brief, page 3).  Instead, the examiner has used the common                  
          knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art, which the               
          court has said may be properly relied upon for a conclusion of              
          obviousness without any specific teaching in a particular                   


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007