Ex parte TSAY - Page 7




                Appeal No. 1997-0179                                                                                                    
                Application 08/251,054                                                                                                  


                        The examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to choose a resistance value that would                    

                provide the desired output from the mirrored current (Answer, pages 5 to 6), and that it would have                     

                been obvious to set the resistance value of the load to any value necessary to achieve a desired voltage                

                (such as the feedback voltage) (Answer, page 6).  In response, appellant states that choosing the type                  

                of load needed in order to achieve appellant’s claimed invention would require the use of hindsight                     

                (Reply Brief, page 4).  The examiner disagrees on the basis that no hindsight is necessary to realize that              

                the output of Fischer will be coupled to some type of load (i.e., resistive, capacitive, inductive)                     

                (Supplemental Answer, page 1), and that "it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to utilize               

                a resistive load with the Fischer reference" (Supplemental Answer, pages 1 to 2).  However, the                         

                examiner fails to adequately explain why it would have been obvious to choose the specific voltage set                  

                forth by appellant in the claims on appeal.                                                                             

                        We agree with appellant that "the instant specification does not use a desired voltage but a very               

                specific voltage" (Reply Brief, page 4), and that just because any resistive load may be chosen in                      

                Fischer does not mean that the specific load and voltage defined in appellant’s specification would have                

                been obvious.  We agree with appellant’s argument that hindsight would be required in order to pick a                   
                resistive load value as needed to provide proper voltage (Reply Brief, page 4).   We also agree with4                                    

                        4It must be recognized that any judgement on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based       
                upon hindsight reasoning.  But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of            
                ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the         
                applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.  See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA       
                1971).                                                                                                                  
                                                                   7                                                                    





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007