Appeal No. 1999-2584
Application No. 08/562,988
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case
of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
It is apparent from the line of reasoning in the Answer
that the Examiner has interpreted the language “consisting
essentially of” in appealed independent claim 7 as excluding
any elements not specified in the claim. It is also apparent
that the Examiner has recognized that the Phipps reference,
besides disclosing a resistance connected between a gate node
and a source node of a MOSFET device as claimed by Appellants,
also includes a series of zener diodes connected between the
drain node and the gate node. As the basis for the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection, the Examiner asserts (Answer, pages 4 and
5) the obviousness to the skilled artisan of modifying the
semiconductor device structure of Phipps by either eliminating
the zener diode drain-gate clamp or by moving it to a separate
external package.
After reviewing the disclosure of the Phipps reference in
light of the arguments of record, we are in agreement with
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007