Appeal No. 2000-0131
Application No. 08/800,972
terminal of switch MOSFET 82 as claimed. We agree with Appellants
that, according to conventional usage, the Figure 4 illustration in
Fuller, as well as the accompanying description beginning at column
8, line 43, indicates only that transistor 96 is connected to the
source terminal, not the drain terminal, of switch MOSFET 82.
Accordingly, because the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness since all of the claim limitations are not
taught or suggested by the prior art, the obviousness rejection of
claim 18 is not sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 20, and its dependent claim
31, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims as well.
Independent claim 20 concludes with a recitation of a specific
range of peak parasitic current gain in the switch MOSFET of
“greater than zero and less than or equal to 330.” We find no
basis in the disclosure of Fuller, nor is there any evidence
forthcoming from the Examiner, that would support the Examiner’s
conclusion that such a range of parasitic current gain would be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007