Appeal No. 2001-1827
Application No. 08/696,404
express language of independent claim 13. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
The examiner relies upon the teachings of Eaton at column 1, lines 6-12, which teaches
that the reference generator is independent of fluctuations in operating voltage and
other parameters. We agree with the examiner that having a reference voltage source
independent of fluctuations would have been desirable motivation for combining the
teachings of Eaton with the admitted prior art which uses both a reference voltage at
ground (element 3 in Figure 1) and a voltage VDD (element 2 in Figure 2). Appellant
argues that one seeking to reduce current consumption would not combine the
teachings since Eaton and the AAPA have distinct unrelated functions. (See brief at
page 15.) We disagree with appellant’s conclusion. Appellant has not shown any error
in the motivation set forth by the examiner. Appellant argues that the examiner has not
established why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select
and combine the teachings of the AAPA and Eaton. (See brief at pages 17-18.) We
disagree with appellant. We find that the examiner has provided a line of reasoning for
selecting and combining the teachings which appellant has not persuasively rebutted or
shown error therein. Appellant argues that the examiner has relied upon impermissible
hindsight to reject claims 13-17 and 20. We disagree with appellant.
Appellant argues that the combination of teachings of the AAPA and Eaton does
not teach the “just on” and “just off” to control saturation along with seeking to reduce
the current consumption. (See brief at page 19.) As discussed above, we do not find
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007