Appeal No. 2003-0163
Application No. 09/400,508
Appellant argues that claim 6 recites that the current source has an “intrinsic
transistor” and that the specification teaches the significant benefits of enhancing
independence. Here, we find that appellant’s argument adds further support to the
broad claim interpretation given to independent claim 1 since the limitation to an
intrinsic transistor is not recited until dependent claim 3. Therefore, claim 1 is entitled to
a broader interpretation than independent claim 6. But for claim 6 the examiner has
relied upon the teaching of Chang with respect to the suggestion to use an intrinsic
transistor. Appellant argues that Chang does not suggest modifying the n-type
transistor of Lee to a p-type transistor. (See brief at page 11.) Again, we find no
limitation in the language of the claim that requires a p-type transistor. We find that the
language of the claim is generic to either a p-type or n-type transistor. Therefore, this
argument is not persuasive. Appellant argues that the examiner’s rejection is based
upon improper hindsight reconstruction. We disagree with appellant and find that the
examiner’s rejection is based upon a broad and correct interpretation of the language of
the claims discussed above. Therefore, we will also sustain the rejection of
independent claim 6 and the claims that depend therefrom.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 is affirmed, and the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007