Appeal 2007-1647
Application 10/631,841
MOSFET device, (as represented by Cp in AAPA, Fig. 1), a first parasitic
capacitance (i.e., the parasitic capacitance associated with Rapp’s transistor
90) is not reasonably a “large capacitor” with respect to a second parasitic
capacitance (as represented by Cp in AAPA, Fig. 1). For us to affirm the
Examiner on this point would require speculation on our part.
Because the Examiner has failed to show each element connected or
coupled as recited in the independent claim 1, we need not reach the issue of
motivation to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of AAPA in view of Rapp. We find
identical language (i.e., “a large capacitor coupled between the bias node
and a lower supply voltage”) recited in each of independent claims 12 and
23, and equivalent language recited in independent claim 33 (i.e., “a large
capacitor between the bias node and the lower supply voltage”). Therefore,
we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 12, 23, and 33 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of AAPA in view of Rapp for the
same reasons discussed supra with respect to independent claim 1. Because
we have reversed the Examiner’s rejection of each independent claim on
appeal, we also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2-11,
13-22, 24-32, and 34-42 as being unpatentable over the teachings of AAPA
in view of Rapp.
6 Rapp discloses at col. 9, lines 39-42: “The source and drain of transistor 90
are connected to ground. Transistor 90 serves as a capacitor, helping to hold
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013