Appeal No. 2002-0397
Application 08/925,968
the references and states that it would be improper to generalize
from the narrow teachings of the references (RBr3-4).
Initially, we note that the rejection must contain a mention
of all references applied in the rejection. See In re Hoch,
428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970);
Ex parte Movva, 31 USPQ2d 1027, 1028 n.1 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
1993). Accord Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat.
App. & Int. 1988); In re Raske, 28 USPQ2d 1304, 1304-05 (Bd. Pat.
App. & Int. 1993); MPEP § 706.02(j) (7th ed., rev. 1, Feb. 2000).
The references should have been made part of the statement of the
rejection. Nevertheless, we address the references because they
are discussed by appellant. Carroll, Figs. 1 and 2, show that a
transistor M1 can be thought of as an equivalent resistor Req
(col. 1, lines 20-24). Townley, Fig. 5, shows that an FET can be
modeled as an equivalent circuit of a parallel combination of a
capacitor and a resistor (col. 5, lines 46-49) and states that
"[v]arying the voltage between the gate and source varies the
value of the resistance Rp, thereby providing variable
attenuation for the artificial transmission line" (col. 5,
lines 49-52). Ohmi, Fig. 9, shows that a turned-on MOS
transistor 40 can be modeled as an equivalent resistance RM
(col. 21, line 62 to col. 22, line 1). None of these references
shows that an FET is equivalent to an RC voltage divider
attenuator. The references do not show a parasitic capacitor
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007