Appeal No. 2004-0634
Application No. 09/948,271
not require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor."
In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Kemps,
97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693,
16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(in banc).
The examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
combine Momohara with Williams based on the known advantages of each individual
component in the context of I/O circuits. The examiner cites both Momohara's teaching that a
triple well structure can reduce the influence of electric noise among circuits (Momohara, col. 41,
ll. 18-23) and that a triple well structure permits applying optimal bias potentials to the divided
wells (Momohara, col. 41, ll. 38-44). We agree with the examiner that one of ordinary skill
would have perceived an advantage in placing the input/output circuit of Williams within a triple
well structure such as that taught by Momohara. The examiner cites Williams' teaching that the
I/O circuit, which includes cascode circuitry, has improved performance characteristics
(Williams, col. 5, ll. 48-49) and that cascode circuitry operates to electrically insulate the pad
from other circuitry during the presence of stress currents at the pad (Williams, col. 6, ll. 24-27).
Again, we agree with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have perceived an
advantage from including cascode circuitry in the input/output circuitry of Momohara.
Accordingly, we find that the examiner has identified ample motivation within the prior art that
would have suggested combining the teachings of Momohara and Williams.
Appellants argue that "[t]here is no indication that anyone has appreciated that using the
cascode circuit with the triple well would reduce the output shunt capacitance to achieve higher
output bandwidth." (brief, page 3.) Under appellants’ argument, the examiner would essentially
be required to find a motivation to combine the references that is the same as that which appears
in appellant's specification. Appellants cite no authority for this. In contrast, however, it is well
established that "[t]he motivation in the prior art to combine the references does not have to be
identical to that of the applicant to establish obviousness." In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430,
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007