Appeal No. 2000-0751
Application No. 08/903,549
With regard to independent claim 21, the examiner states
that “it is well-known in the art to use a FET as a transfer gate
for transmitting signals between a pair of logic gates (as is the
use of a PMOS transistor in parallel with an NMOS transistor), of
which fact official notice is taken” [answer-page 8].
Not only does independent claim 21 contain the “selectively
connected to...” language of claims 11 and 27 and not only does
independent claim 1 contain the “boosted” supply voltages of
claim 27, but the examiner has failed to provide evidence of the
things alleged to be “well-known” even though official notice
taken by the examiner of these things has been challenged by
appellant.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-26 under
35 U.S.C. 103 is not sustained.
The rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Yoh or
Crouse is also not sustained because claim 29 depends from claim
27, the rejection of which under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) over these same
references was not sustained and the examiner’s rationale under
35 U.S.C. 103 adds nothing that would supply the deficiencies
noted supra with regard to the 102 rejection.
-8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007