Appeal No. 1996-3846
Application No. 08/251,649
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner maintains that Ogiue discloses a current mirror that is connected
indirectly to bit lines and base electrodes of the bipolar transistors. (See supplemental
answer at page 2.) Appellants argue that Figure 12 of Ogiue shows that the current mirror
(T35, T36, T38) is connected to the bipolar transistors and is not connected to the first and
second bit lines and the base electrodes of the current-controlled bipolar transistors. (See
reply brief at page 1.) We agree with appellants. Appellants argue that Miyamoto similarly
shows in Figure 4 that the current mirror (53-56) is connected to the bipolar transistors (38,
39) and is not connected to the first and second bit lines and the base electrodes of the
current-controlled bipolar transistors. (See reply brief at pages 1-2.) We agree with
appellants. Moreover, the examiner has not provided a convincing line of reasoning why it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
connect the “sense amplifier means further comprising a CMOS current mirror circuit
connected to said first and second bit lines and said base electrodes of said current-
controlled bipolar transistors” as recited in the language of claim 1. Since the examiner
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007