Appeal No. 2003-0522
Application No. 09/324,237
OPINION
Generally for the reasons set forth by appellant in the
brief, we reverse the rejection of all claims on appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
All rejected claims on appeal in some manner recite
“complementary transistors”. The discussion in the paragraph
bridging specification pages 5 and 6 with respect to the initial
circuit embodiment in Figure 3a appears to define generally that
complementary transistors are in the form of a transistor pair of
NPN and PNP bipolar transistors or complementary metal oxide
semiconductor (CMOS) transistors formed from NMOS and PMOS
devices. Appellant’s submission of selected pages from the book
in Appendix 2 attached to the brief attempts to confirm this.
As is known in the art, the terms complementary and
complementary transistors have specific meanings. In this
regard, we make reference to the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of
Scientific and Technical Terms, Fifth Edition, page 421, (McGraw-
Hill, Inc., NY, 1994).2
These terms are defined in this manner:
2
2A copy of this relevant material is attached to this opinion.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007