Appeal No. 2002-0397
Application 08/925,968
between a drain and a gate, or the function of such a capacitor.
Thus, the mere equivalence between a resistor and a biased FET
does not address the equivalence between an RC voltage divider
attenuator and an FET or the difference in function of an FET
over an RC attenuator because of the parasitic capacitor.
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The
rejection of independent claims 1, 8, 13, 15, and 17 is reversed.
We appreciate that the claims are very broad. We agree with
the examiner the limitations "coupled to receive binary signals
that vary between first and second preselected voltage levels"
and "coupled to deliver binary signals that vary between the
first preselected voltage level and a third preselected voltage
level" could be interpreted to be statements of intended use
since no circuit for inputting first and second voltage levels is
claimed. If the examiner found the claimed structure of a
transistor, biasing resistor, and capacitor (the parasitic
capacitor being inherent in all transistors), appellant would
have to claim a new use for an old circuit as a process claim
instead of an apparatus under 35 U.S.C. § 100(b). However, on
the record before us, which has been created by the examiner, we
do not find the claimed subject matter to be obvious.
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007