Appeal No. 1997-0799
Application 08/242,235
Claims 1 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Buzak in
view of Iwama.2
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse.
Appellant's Background of the Invention in the early
pages of the specification as filed as well as the initial
teachings and showings in both references relied upon indicate
that the structure recited in independent claim 1 on appeal
excluding the wherein clause was well known in the art. More
2There appears to be no antecedent basis for the language "said controlling
means” of dependent claims 2 through 4 in parent claim 1. However, what appears to be
intended is that
the language of the driving circuit including a means for substantially eliminating an
increase should be recited in
claim 1 to indicate that the driving circuit includes a means
for controlling or a controlling means since the features recited in dependent claims 2
through 4 clearly relate to the modified aspects of the driving circuit referred to at the end
of claim 1 on appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007