Appeal No. 2003-0163
Application No. 09/400,508
is very dependent on the supply voltage, but as discussed above, we find these terms
to be broad and within the teachings of Lee.
Appellant disagrees with the examiner’s position that if the n-type transistor of
Lee were replaced with a p-type transistor the system would operate “relatively
independent”. We do not reach this argument with respect to independent claim 1
since the claim does not recite a p-type transistor. Therefore, this argument is not
persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 1.
35 USC § 103
With respect to dependent claim 2, we find the examiner’s line of reasoning to
replace a n-type transistor with a p-type transistor to be well within the knowledge and
level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art and that those skilled in the art would have
known the respective changes that would have to be made for proper operation of the
p-type circuit. Appellant argues that the substitution would cause significant
misoperation of the circuit in Lee. (See brief at page 10.) We disagree and find this
change within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, this argument is not
persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of dependent claim 2. Therefore, the
remainder of claims 3-16 should similarly fall with claim 2 since appellant elected to
group all the claims as standing or falling together. (See brief at page 5.) But,
appellant has included a specific argument to independent claim 6 at page 11 of the
brief. Therefore, we will address this argument.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007