Appeal No. 2003-1208
Application 09/590,805
Instead, Kalnitsky’s radiation-unhardened transistor is designed
to carry out the function of the integrated circuit.
The examiner argues that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to use in Kalnitsky’s integrated
circuit a second device as a utile device and a first device as a
safeguard device in order to use the utile device in an
application which requires circuit protection (answer, page 8).
For a prima facie case of obviousness to be established, the
teachings from the prior art itself must appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
1976). The mere fact that the prior art could be modified as
proposed by the examiner is not sufficient to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The examiner’s proposed modification of Kalnitsky requires
that Kalnitsky’s radiation-hard transistor, which is used to
measure the radiation-induced degradation of the radiation-
unhardened transistor, be replaced by a radiation-soft transistor
that protects the radiation-unhardened transistor against the
effects of radiation. The examiner has not explained why
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007