Appeal No. 1997-3923
Application 08/212,203
transmitting the correction signal to the actuator driver to control the current
supplied to the actuator.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
DuVall 4,355,273 Oct. 19, 1982
Lee 4,638,230 Jan. 20, 1987
Edel et al. (Edel) 4,835,633 May 30, 1989
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner relies upon Edel in view of Lee.
Claims 3, 4, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner relies upon Edel in view of Lee, further in view of DuVall.
Rather than repeat the positions of appellants and the examiner, reference is made to the Brief
and the Answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this appeal, we have carefully considered
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied patents, and the respective viewpoints of appellants
and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we are in general agreement with appellants (Brief,
pages 8 to 19) that the claims on appeal would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made in light of the collective teachings of the applied prior art. We find
that the examiner has failed to make out a prima facie case of obviousness. For the reasons which
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007