Ex parte FLANNAGAN

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 10, 1998

08076080 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 10, 1998)

Application for patent filed June 14, 1993. According1
to appellant, this application is a division of Application
07/951,620, filed September 28, 1992, now U.S. Patent No.
5,293,081, issued March 8, 1994, which is a division of
Application 07/763,018, filed September 20, 1991, now U.S.
Patent No. 5,184,033, issued February 2, 1993.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte STEPHEN FLANNAGAN
__________
Appeal No. 95-2433
Application 08/076,0801
__________
REHEARING
__________
Before KRASS, FLEMING, and LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant requests rehearing based on an alleged
Appeal No. 95-2433
Application No. 08/076,080
2
overlooked point in our decision of June 17, 1998.
More particularly, appellant alleges that even if the
substitutions alleged by the examiner are considered to have
been obvious, the resulting structure still does not teach or
suggest the limitations of claim 16. In support thereof,
appellant submits five figures, starting from Fig. 2 of Nagano
and changes one at a time, from PNP transistors substituted
for NPN transistors, to reversal of power supply polarities to
reversal of positive and negative power supplies and, finally,
to a substitution of P-channel MOS transistors substituted for
PNP transistors, resulting in Figure 5 in the request for
rehearing. Appellant then points out that even if all of
these changes were made to Nagano’s circuit, the subject
matter of claim 16 is still not reached.
Specifically, appellant cites the following differences:
1. Transistor Q3 does not have its source coupled to
terminal OUT.
2. Transistor Q3 does not have its drain coupled to a
current mirror.
3. The circuit of Figure 5 in the request for rehearing
does not function as a square-law clamping circuit.
4. The current IO in resulting Figure 5 is completely
Appeal No. 95-2433
Application No. 08/076,080
3
determined by currents I1 and I2 and the voltage on terminal
OUT floats to a level which supplies IO under varying load
conditions whereas the second MOS transistor of claim 16 has
its source coupled to the I/O terminal. Accordingly, the
current through the second MOS transistor will vary.
We are unpersuaded by appellant’s arguments since
appellant has derived a circuit (Figure 5 in the request for
rehearing) completely by bodily incorporation of elements
without considering the level of skill of the artisan in
determining the obviousness of the instant claimed subject
matter as a whole. One must look to what the art, as a whole,
would have suggested to the skilled artisan and not merely to
what a resulting circuit would look like by physically
substituting one element for another in a sequential manner.
With regard to the first argument, transistor Q3 of
Nagano has its collector, which is equivalent to the source of
a MOS transistor, coupled to the terminal OUT.
With regard to the second argument, transistor Q3 of
Nagano has its emitter, which is equivalent to the drain of a
MOS transistor, coupled to current mirror circuit 11.
With regard to appellant’s third argument, as we
explained in our decision, at pages 4-5, while Nagano does
Appeal No. 95-2433
Application No. 08/076,080
4
disclose an arithmetic operation circuit, this does not
preclude the circuit, or part thereof, from operating in a
clamping circuit manner. It would appear that the signal at
the terminal OUT in Nagano is clamped to the voltage level
generated from Q4 by transistor Q3, just as appellant’s
transistor 132 clamps output 100 to the voltage generated by
transistor 135. This has been the examiner’s position and,
while that position appears quite reasonable to us, appellant
has provided no argument thereagainst, other than to say that
there is no clamping function in Nagano. Appellant has not
provided any argument or evidence as to why terminal OUT in
Nagano is not clamped to the voltage level generated from
transistor Q4 by transistor Q3.
We also note, as we did at page 5 of our decision, that
while appellant argues the “square-law clamping” aspect of the
invention, this term appears only in the claim preamble and
there is nothing within the body of the claim indicative of
any “square-law clamping” or any clamping at all.
With regard to appellant’s last argument relative to
current IO in Nagano, it is not seen where this argument is
Appeal No. 95-2433
Application No. 08/076,080
5
relevant to the claimed subject matter which recites a circuit
structure but recites nothing about the current at terminal
OUT.
We have considered appellant’s request for rehearing and
have granted the request to that extent but we deny the
request
with respect to making any changes in our decision as we are
unconvinced of any error therein.
DENIED
Errol A. Krass )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-2433
Application No. 08/076,080
6
)
)
)
Michael R. Fleming ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Jameson Lee )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-2433
Application No. 08/076,080
7
Maurice J. Jones
Motorola, Inc.
505 Barton Springs Road, Suite 500
Austin, TX 78704
Appeal No. 95-2433
Application No. 08/076,080
8