Appeal No. 1998-0440
Application No. 08/351,578
Regarding the claimed differential amplifier, the
examiner contends (Answer, page 4) that
it is well-known that differential amplifiers output
complementary signals (i.e., signals that are in
phase opposition) and therefore one skilled in the
art would recognize that the push-pull pair of
transistors of Tanizawa et al, which are disclosed
as being driven in phase opposition, could obviously
be driven by any type of circuit that outputs
signals that are in phase opposition, such as
differential output drive stages, which are
notoriously well-known in the art. (Underlining
ours)
Appellants assert (Brief, page 7) that the examiner has never
addressed the limitation that the claimed driver is an analog
differential amplifier. We agree. Further, the examiner has
failed to provide any evidence of obviousness for modifying
Tanizawa to include an analog differential amplifier. The
standard under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not what "could" be done,
but rather what would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan.
The examiner is required to provide a reason from some
teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior art as a
whole, why one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art
would have been led to modify the prior art to arrive at the
claimed invention. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007