Appeal 2007-1648
Application 10/631,098
SOI teaches the body of the MOSFET being floating with respect to the
underlying substrate.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007). The question of obviousness is
resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the
scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed
subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where
in evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). See also KSR, 127 S. Ct. at
1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1391 (“While the sequence of these questions might be
reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the
inquiry that controls.”)
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Examiner finds that Au teaches a circuit which has a
MOSFET (transistor Q1), with a body and gate; a resistor
capacitor circuit and a control network (item 40). The
control network modulates and controls the potential body of
the transistor and is capable of providing ESD protection, i.e.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013