Appeal 2007-0157
Application 10/984,584
find that each motivation would be different for a different recited field of
endeavor. Here, we only find a generic method in claim 15.
Here, we find sufficient motivation to combine the teachings of Hsu and
Hodges and apply the combined teaching to the automatic test equipment
field as taught by AAPA. With respect to Appellant’s argument concerning
a long bus/transmission line, we find this relative to the distances, voltages
and capacitive values involved. In the instant claimed invention, we find
little point of reference or context. Therefore, we find the Examiner’s
motivation not unreasonable or flawed as Appellant contends. Therefore,
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of
claim 15 and claims 24-28 and 30.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, we have sustained the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-
4, 6-11, 15, 21, 22, 24-28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013