Appeal No. 2002-0343
Application No. 09/226,630
The references relied on by the examiner in the rejections
are:
Swallow et al. (Swallow) 3,750,586 Aug. 7, 1973
Peregrim 5,218,574 June 8, 1993
Claims 1 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Peregrim.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Peregrim in view of Swallow.
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 6) and the
answer (paper number 8) for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
8.
Appellant has not challenged the examiner’s findings
(answer, page 3) concerning the teachings of Peregrim. Appellant
does, however, challenge (brief, pages 7, 10 and 11) the
examiner’s conclusion (answer, page 4) that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a metal
oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET) for the
bipolar transistor 76 disclosed by Peregrim. Appellant argues
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007