Appeal No. 2000-1939
Application 08/791,281
(capacitors C2 & C3)." Answer at 5. 2 Nevertheless, we agree
with Appellants that Gregorian would not have suggested to the
artisan that the admitted prior art circuit suffers from the
problem of capacitor discharge due to a leakage current from one
or more of the switching transistors. Although, as the examiner
correctly notes (Answer at 7-8), the admitted prior art circuit
and Appellants' circuit are similar in that both include a
capacitor having a terminal connected to two switches, the
circuits are otherwise considerably different in structure and
operation as regards the capacitors in question. Specifically,
in the admitted prior art circuit both of the terminals of the
capacitor are switched by switches operating at the fundamental
clocking frequency (Fig. 2), whereas in Gregorian only one of the
terminals of capacitor 23 is switched at all, let alone at the
fundamental clocking frequency (i.e., by transistor 24 in
response to signal N2). In view of these significant
differences, we are not persuaded that one skilled in the art
2 As the examiner correctly notes (Answer at 6), a
proper § 103(a) rejection need not be based on solving the same
problem that is solved by the applicant's invention. See In re
Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir.
1992) ("As long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the
references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law
does not require that the references be combined for the reasons
contemplated by the inventor. In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1304,
190 USPQ 425, 427-28 (CCPA 1976); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).").
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007