Appeal No. 1999-1850
Application No. 08/870,406
for example, in the common emitter cell) is connected to the emitter of transistors Q52 and Q53
in the equivalent subcell of the common base cell. This appears to be a fair interpretation of
Izuhara and appellants have not disputed it by pointing out how this analysis is in error.
At page 11 of the brief, appellants point out that Izuhara teaches the use of ballast resistors to
prevent thermal runaway while the instant claimed invention does not claim any ballast resistors
or show any ballast resistors in the associated figures. This argument is not persuasive since the
instant claims do not preclude ballast resistors. While we understand that the instant invention
was intended to improve upon the prior art by eliminating ballast resistors, such elimination is
not required by the instant claims. Moreover, an applied reference may always show more than
what is claimed but this does not preclude the reference from being a valid anticipatory reference
so long as the reference discloses each and every claimed limitation. The examiner has shown
that each limitation is met and appellants have pointed to nothing in the claims which is not
disclosed by the reference.
Appellants further argue that in the instant invention the collectors are connected to the
emitters in the line of the current flow which is said to be a “major difference” between the
instant claimed device and Izuhara. However, we find nothing in the instant claims directed to
“the line of current flow” and appellants have pointed to no such limitation within the claims.
Arguments directed to limitations which do not appear in the claims are not persuasive as they
are irrelevant to the instant claimed subject matter.
6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007