Appeal No. 1997-3996
Application 08/519,952
which outputs a triangle wave voltage and a reference clock signal from an external circuit (see language
of representative claim 1 on appeal). A bias oscillator is not required by representative claim 1, and an
oscillator that outputs a triangle wave and an external clock oscillator are required.
Komori is very different from claim 1 in that two recording signal internal bias oscillators of a
tape recorder are taught as being synchronized. Komori concerns recording signal synchronization of
two internal bias oscillators, and not a voltage power source circuit having one internal triangle wave
oscillator and one external clock signal oscillator as recited in representative claim 1. Komori also does
not teach a triangle wave oscillator as required by Claim 1. In this light, we conclude that it would not
have been obvious to modify appellant’s admitted prior art power source circuit with the internal bias
oscillator synchronization of Komori.
The examiner reasons in his rejection that it would have been obvious to modify the admitted
prior art with Komori "in order to prevent beat noises caused by a frequency difference between
recording bias oscillating signals of tape recorder sections" (Answer, page 4)(emphasis added). We
cannot agree with this line of reasoning when nothing in the claim requires "recording bias oscillating
signals of tape recorder sections," and especially when both of Komori’s recording sections are internal
circuits as opposed to one internal and one external circuit as called for by claim 1. Therefore, we
conclude that there is no persuasive motivation provided by the examiner to modify the admitted prior
art of Figure 5 with the teachings of Komori absent appellant’s disclosure.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007