Appeal No. 2000-2037
Application No. 08/810,055
inventor.” Para-Ordinance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d
at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W.L. Gore &
Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 311, 312-
13 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Here, the examiner asserts (answer at page 5) that “[a]nd,
it is of course, notoriously well known as a matter of first year
electrical engineering that any two resistors, equal or
different, can be placed in parallel for the purpose of lowering
the total resistance . . . .” We are not convinced by the
examiner’s argument. Whereas we agree with the examiner that
putting two resistors in parallel lowers the resistance, there is
nothing in the record which would suggest that there is a need or
motivation to combine the two resistors in parallel to have a
lower resistance, nor that it is the only reason for the specific
structure recited in the claims. Consequently, we are of the
view that the examiner has not given a proper justification for
combining the references.
In conclusion, we have not sustained under 35 U.S.C. 103 the
rejection of claims 3, 11, 17-20 over Grosse-Wilde and Moorhead,
nor of claims 3, 5, 6, 11, 13, 14, and 17-20 over Grosse-Wilde
and Karlstrom.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007