Appeal No. 1999-1630
Application No. 08/784,775
appellant’s own disclosure since neither APA nor Nagasawa suggests the modification being made by
the examiner. This, of course, is an improper basis for reaching the conclusion of obviousness of the
instant claimed subject matter.
The examiner contends that it is “old and well known” in the art to employ MOS transistors for their
superiority over bipolar transistors in achieving power consumption reduction [answer-page 4].
However, even if we adopt the examiner’s position that MOS transistors should be substituted for
bipolar transistors because of their alleged “superiority,” why is the examiner contending that it would
have been obvious to replace APA’s transistors Q2-Q3 with MOS transistors but no mention is made
of replacing APA’s bipolar transistor Q4? If MOS transistors are “superior,” why not just replace all
bipolar transistors of APA with MOS transistors? Again, it appears that the examiner is merely picking
and choosing only so much of the prior art that is necessary to meet the instant claimed limitations
without regard to the interaction between other circuit elements.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 because, in our
view, the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness. We do not mean to imply that,
perhaps, a prima facie case could not have been made; only that the examiner has not done so.
We also do not agree with appellant’s argument [reply brief-page 2] that the examiner’s rationale
was flawed because the present invention was designed to solve the problem of saturation of the
collector potentials of the bipolar transistors Q2 and Q3 of APA which results in reduced operating
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007