Appeal No. 2003-1884
Application No. 09/837,943
Appealed claims 1-13, 15-17, 20-23 and 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tsubone in view
of Smith and MKS. Claims 14 and 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the stated combination
of references further in view of Nakagawa. Also, claims 18 and
19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the stated combination of references further in view of
Matsumura.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellant and the examiner. In so doing, we find
ourselves in agreement with appellant that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed
subject matter. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection.
Appellant agrees with the examiner that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have known to use a filter for removing
noise from an electronic circuit. It is appellant's contention
that the present invention resides in the discovery that "the
fluctuating mass coolant flow problem results from the spiking
voltage signal at setpoint control 102 [whereas] [p]rior to the
invention, ordinarily skilled artisans did not recognize that the
problem was the spiking voltage control noise" (page 7 of
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007