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
2.
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
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007