Appeal No. 95-2867 Page 6
Application 07/744,324
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Appellants have not met this burden.
11. Based on Findings 5 to 10, we find that the preponderance
of evidence in this record supports the examiner's rejection of
claims 34 and 39 under section 102.
C. Evidence of obviousness
12. Claim 35, which depends from claim 34, further requires
"said filtering step selectively [to] pass[] a spectra of frequency
related to a local AC line frequency." Inoue is directed at a
different problem--avoiding creating interfering radio signals during
a diagnostic procedure--and thus is silent about noise from AC power
lines. It is not clear on this record that a person having ordinary
skill in the art would have considered Inoue to have any relevance to
the AC power line noise problem. Consequently, the preponderance of
evidence in the record suggests that any relation of passed spectra
to local AC line frequency would be coincidental. This putative
coincidence does not establish motivation or inherency.
13. Appellants have not contested, or provided evidence of,
the level of skill in the art or secondary considerations.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007