Appeal No. 1997-2034
Application No. 08/347,788
draw inferences about the FETs of Numata. As to Yoshida, we
find no mention whatsoever of temperature compensation.
Therefore, the examiner's reasoning that Yoshida's thresholds
clearly vary proportionately to changes in temperature and
process variations because that is how Yoshida performs
temperature compensation is puzzling to us. Lastly, although
Lee is directed to threshold variations, Lee makes no mention
of temperature compensation. Therefore, the examiner's
assertion as to the characteristics of Lee's FETs appears to
be unfounded. Furthermore, we infer from Lee's disclosure
that natural transistors actually are not used as Lee requires
an additional transistor T16 to achieve a constant output
voltage. Thus, the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness.
We note that the examiner's further motivations for
modifying the references fail to meet the standards set forth
in In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed.
Cir. 1988), wherein the court held that the examiner must
establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. In so doing, the examiner is required to make
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007