Ex parte INOUE - Page 8

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

          reference.  See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ                  
          545, 549 (CCPA 1969).  Therefore, we will sustain the                       
          rejection of claim 4 over Stakely.                                          
               On the other hand, we generally agree with appellant's                 
          arguments against the rejection of claims 1 through 6 over                  
          Fujita, Bufano, and Thelen.  Specifically, appellant explains               
          (Brief, page 17) that in Fujita "it is necessary that the                   
          resistor R should have one end connected to ground V  and the               
          other end not connected to any voltage.  This is because the                
          voltages V + and V - are generated at the other end of theREF      REF                                                      
          resistor R where the constant current flows."  Appellant                    
          continues (Brief, page 18),                                                 
               On the other hand, at the voltage dividing point 12                    
               of Bufano, Jr. et al a voltage is generated by                         
               dividing Vdd.  Therefore, it is impossible to                          
               combine Bufano, Jr. et al with Fujita since the                        
               combination would not allow the generation of a                        
               positive and negative voltage so that the ground                       
               voltage V  which is a [sic] stable is symmetrical                      
               with respect to the generated voltages V .                             
          In other words, the combination of Bufano and Fujita would not              
          allow the comparator of Fujita to operate as intended.  "[A]                
          proposed modification [is] inappropriate for an obviousness                 
          inquiry when the modification render[s] the prior art                       


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007