Appeal No. 95-0181
Application 08/012,401
[t]he Examiner has failed to cite any
reference which would suggest preventing
resonant sympathetic vibrations and has
failed to cite any reference which would
suggest dimensioning the diaphragm to
have a resonance frequency above the
oscillation frequency range of the
pressure to be detected . . .
and that
. . . the Kodama reference cited by the
Examiner does not even mention the
source of trouble resolved by the
claimed invention let alone provide the
remedy of the claimed invention.
The examiner's line of reasoning does not contain any
discussion of whether the skilled artisan would have appreciated
the diaphragm problem caused by the oscillation frequency of the
pressure to be detected, and would have solved that problem in
the manner disclosed and claimed by appellant. The obviousness
rejection is, therefore, reversed because "a patentable invention
may lie in the discovery of the source of a problem even though
the remedy may be obvious once the source of the problem is
identified." See In re Sponnoble, 405 F.2d 578, 585, 160 USPQ
237, 243 (CCPA 1969).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007