Ex parte KIRKPATRICK II - Page 8

          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                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007