Appeal No. 1998-3003 Page 20
Application No. 08/589,621
The appellants argue (brief, p. 6) that claim 6
specifically requires a "choke coil connected to said
oscillator means" and that such structure is not taught or
suggested by the applied prior art (i.e., Fuentes and Dugan).
The examiner responded (answer, p. 5) to the appellants'
argument stating that the electric coil of Fuentes (see column
5, line 62) is not disclosed as a choke coil and it is not
clear if the coil is used to change the frequency of the
sound. The examiner then stated that
the use of RL circuits and also RC circuits are old and
well known (see Dugan in lines 15-20 of column 3 for RC
circuits) and it would have been obvious to use an old
and well known RLL circuit to change the values of the
sound frequency since the function is the same and no
showing of unexpected results was made.
We agree with the appellants that the applied prior art
(i.e., Fuentes and Dugan) does not teach or suggest use of a
"choke coil connected to said oscillator means," as set forth
in claim 6. As in the rejections of claims 2 through 4, there
is no evidence in this rejection to support the examiner's
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007