Appeal No. 1998-1750
Application No. 08/579,490
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of appellant
and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
While Figure 2 of Douglas does, arguably, show an input terminal, a PMOS
transistor and a shunt NMOS transistor, as claimed, even the examiner admits that the
reference does not disclose the claimed “series-pass NMOS transistor having a drain
terminal connected to the drain terminal of the PMOS transistor, having a source terminal,
and having a gate terminal always connected to a VCC voltage level...”
The examiner explains away this claimed difference by citing it as a “design
expedient” depending upon a particular environment. The claim language is fairly explicit
in the recitation of this “series-pass NMOS transistor” and its specific interconnection with
the other claimed elements. It is insufficient for the examiner to dismiss this integral part of
the claimed subject matter by calling it merely a “design expedient” and holding that it
would have been obvious to place such a transistor before the inverter 46 of Douglas for
the purpose of limiting output current.
We find no reason, other than possibly hindsight gleaned from appellant’s
disclosure, for making the modification suggested by the examiner. There is absolutely
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007