Ex Parte GOESER et al - Page 7



          Appeal No. 2000-1938                                                        
          Application 08/940,467                                                      

                    When water is present in a brake disc                             
                    assembly a substantial decrease in braking                        
                    torque occurs.  This decrease is the result                       
                    of a loss of friction coefficient due to the                      
                    build up of steam between the opposing brake                      
                    discs.                                                            
               Appellants do not contend that the fact stated in the                  
               first sentence was their discovery.  It is such a                      
               widely known phenomenon we could take judicial notice                  
               of it.  The second sentence is a mere statement of fact                
               without any indication of who discovered that fact.                    
               The specification does not say appellants discovered                   
               it.  Counsel have seized upon it as the basis for their                
               argument, but that is not enough; there must be some                   
               evidence of record by way of affidavits or                             
               declarations, or at least a clear and persuasive                       
               assertion in the specification, that the fact relied on                
               to support patentability was the discovery of the                      
               applicants for patent.  For all that appears from the                  
               record in this case, appellants were reciting a fact                   
               already known to those working in the art.                             
          Wiseman, 596 F.2d at 1022-23, 201 USPQ at 661.                              
          On the other hand, we do find ourselves in agreement with                   
          Appellants' argument (Brief at 11-12) that one skilled in the art           
          would not have found in Figure 2 of Fritschi, which shows                   
          circuitry for controlling the pickup coil in an electromagnet               
          having a pickup coil and a holding coil (col. 1, 11. 5-9), any              
          suggestion of placing a capacitor in parallel with a zener diode            
          in order to round off its kink point and thereby reduce its                 
          discharge rate, as contended by the examiner.  Specifically, the            
          examiner, apparently relying on the parallel connection of                  
          capacitor 19 and zener diode 20, contends that                              
               it is well-known in the art to use a zener/capacitor                   
               parallel combination as a breakdown protection circuit                 
               (note Fig. 2 of [Fritschi]) for the well-known purpose                 
               of being able to control the rate of breakover current                 
               when the zener breaks down, i.e., those skilled in the                 
               art know that without the parallel capacitor, the                      
                                        - 7 -                                         




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007