Appeal No. 1997-0272
Application No. 08/277,388
compensation circuit at all and the temperature sensitive
resistor in Mount appears to be located at the input of the
disclosed circuit as part of a sensor used for detecting
temperature. Thus, we do not find any reason for the artisan
to have combined the teachings of this reference with APA and,
even if combined, we find that the instant claimed subject
matter would not result. Thus, we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Similarly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 2
through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the Rao, Borer and/or
Ohata references do not provide for the deficiencies of APA
and Mount.
The examiner did not even convincingly respond to
appellant’s arguments anent the prior art, stating, at page 12
of the answer, only that
In light of the significant problems with the
specification (including the drawings) and claims,
all that is necessary to meet the claims is a
teaching of temperature sensitive resistors which
are not in the signal path between the Hall output
and the circuit output.
Thus, the examiner appears to be saying that but for perceived
problems under 35 U.S.C. § 112, it would be necessary to show
more for a proper prior art rejection. Such a conclusion is
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007