Appeal 2007-1095
Application 09/944,171
Further, as pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the claim.” In
re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir.
1998). Therefore, we look to the limitations as recited and disputed in
dependent claim 2. Claim 2 recites “each diode is a PN junction diode
formed by placing a doped area of a first conductivity type in a first well of a
second conductivity type, a deep well of the first conductivity type formed
under the first well to isolate the first well from a substrate of the second
conductivity type.”
With respect to dependent claim 2, the Examiner maintains that Jun
teaches the use of a well within a well (Answer 13) and that it would have
been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention. While we
agree with the Examiner that Jun suggests a well within a well, the Examiner
has not provided a convincing line of reasoning why it would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have used the
specific combination of four wells as recited in dependent claim 2.
Therefore, we do not find that the Examiner has established the requisite
initial showing required under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore, we cannot
sustain the rejection of dependent claim 2 and claim 3-4 that depend
therefrom.
With respect to dependent claim 5, Appellants argue that the clamp
circuits of Watt are not between the two power lines (Br. 9). The Examiner
maintains that the clamp circuit does extend between two power lines
(Answer 13-14). We agree with both the Examiner and with Appellants, but
it is the language of dependent claim 5 which controls. Here, the Examiner
has relied upon a general teaching of clamp circuits between two power lines
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013