Appeal No. 1999-1640
Application 08/782,464
Opinion
Since we have concluded the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness, we reverse the rejection of all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Although in the statement of the rejection the examiner relies upon both disclosed
Figures 1 and 2 as representations of the admitted prior art, the examiner’s reasoning
focuses upon the structure of Figure 2B. In its broadest form each of the independent
claims 1, 11, and 21 on appeal is more reflective of the structure of admitted prior Figure
1B rather than Figure 2B since this latter figure focuses upon current mirrors as a part of
the lower switches of known prior art write drivers. The structure of Figure 1B is discussed
at the top of page 5 of the specification as filed as being modifiable such that the Schottky
transistors may be modeled with Schottky diodes coupled between the base and the
collector junctions thereby yielding a clamping function of the base-collector voltage. No
corresponding discussion in the specification as filed related to prior art Figure 2B details
the operation of the current mirror circuits in the lower portion of this figure as having such
a clamping function.
Notwithstanding these considerations however, we find no basis within the
reasoning provided by the examiner and the teachings and suggestions from Brannon to
have combined either structure of prior art Figure 1B or prior art Figure 2B with that of
Brannon to yield the claimed invention of each independent claims 1, 11, and 21 on
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007