Appeal No. 98-0984
Application 08/428,561
unexpected beneficial result is evidence of unobviousness. Ex
parte Novak, 16 USPQ2d 2041, 2043 (Bd. Pat. & Int. 1989),
aff'd. mem., 899 F.2d 1228, 16 USPQ2d 2043 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Contrary to appellant's arguments, the suggestion of modifying
Voss in the manner proposed by the examiner would not be the
result of improper hindsight, but would come from the prior
art (Ruff), "as filtered through the knowledge of one skilled
in the art." Motorola Inc. v. Interdigital Technology Corp.,
121 F.3d 1461, 1472, 43 USPQ2d
1481, 1489 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If Voss is construed as teaching
that the rectifier and capacitor should be located in the
housing, then in effect what appellant has done, insofar as
claim 1 is concerned, is to return them to their pre-Voss
position, outside the housing.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 will be
sustained, as will the rejection of claims 2 to 4, 13, 15 to
17 and 20, which appellant has grouped with claim 1 (brief,
page 4).
Rejection (2)
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007