Appeal No. 1998-0992
Application 08/706,978
Q7 times what? Nothing meaningful in that regard has been set
forth by the examiner as an explanation. On this record, we
have only the examiner’s speculation. Moreover, V is
o
temperature stable and V is not. That indicates that V isbe o
not simply a divided down fraction or fixed proportion of the
base-emitter voltage V of Q7.
be
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-22 as being anticipated
by Henry is reversed.
The Obviousness Rejection
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-22 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Yu and Kimura cannot be
sustained.
As in the case of Henry already discussed above with
regard to the anticipation rejection, the examiner has not, in
this obviousness rejection, sufficiently accounted for the
“constant fraction,” “pre-established fraction,” and “divided
down fraction” feature contained in the claims on appeal with
respect to the relationship between the first component term
to be summed and the base-emitter voltage V of a bipolar
be
transistor.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007