Appeal No. 2001-1827
Application No. 08/696,404
of obviousness, an applicant who complies with the other statutory requirements is
entitled to a patent. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima
facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.” In re Rouffet, 149
F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453 (CAFC 1998). Here, we agree with the examiner’s
rejection and find that appellant has not overcome the prima facie case of obviousness
by showing insufficient evidence by the examiner nor have appellants provided sufficient
evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness which persuade us of the
nonobviousness of the claimed invention.
CLAIM 13
Appellant maintains that claim 13 sets forth “a semiconductor circuit having a
reference voltage provided at the gate of the first transistor at or near a voltage potential
of a first line voltage . . . to maintain the first transistor in a ‘just on’ state.” (See brief at
page 13.) Appellant argues that the use of the FET in a just on state creates a current
source-drain path connecting the bonding pad to the second line voltage while avoiding
subjecting the transistor to operating in a saturation state. This use of a reference
voltage generator for that purpose in a function generating circuit has been unknown
and reduces the current flow without effect by environmental fluctuations. (See brief at
page 13.) We do not find that appellant’s argument is commensurate with the scope of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007