Appeal No. 1999-1850
Application No. 08/870,406
By way of further explanation, at page 11 of the brief, appellants argue that the instant claims
contain far more than just common emitters and bases but set forth how the emitters in the
common-emitter cell are connected to the bases of the transistors in the common-base cell in the
line of current flow, as opposed to Izuhara which shows the reverse connection, i.e., that a
plurality of bases are connected to the emitters in the line of current flow. Whether or not this is
a valid difference, this “difference” is not brought out in the instant claims, as there is no mention
of “line of current flow.” Appellants point to no specific claim limitations on which they rely for
patentability of the claimed subject matter. We find nothing in the instant claims relating to any
connections of emitters and bases, as now argued by appellants as distinguishing over the prior
art.
Since we find none of appellants’ arguments to be convincing of patentability over Izuhara,
we will sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
Turning to the rejection of claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Izuhara, based on the lack of
argument at page 12 of the brief, appellants let these claims and the rejection thereof fall with
claim 1, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
Since we have sustained the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), claims 3-5 will fall
therewith and we will sustain the rejection of claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007