Appeal No. 1997-3996
Application 08/519,952
instead of the triangle wave form required by claim 1. Thus, we agree with appellant (Brief, page 22)
that there would have been no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to prevent beat noise in a
power source circuit by synchronizing an external clock oscillator with an internal triangle wave
oscillator, and that to have done so would have involved the use of hindsight. The examiner has not
demonstrated otherwise.
Although we find that the examiner originally set forth a prima facie case of obviousness, we
must agree with appellant that the examiner’s motivation for making the modification, that of curing beat
noise problems associated with internal recording signal bias oscillators, is not specifically taught or
suggested by the applied references. In addition, the disparate teachings of the references pointed out
by appellant have not been sufficiently dealt with by the examiner. Thus, we find that appellant has
successfully rebutted the examiner’s prima facie case, and we will reverse the rejection.
In view of the foregoing, the decisions of the examiner rejecting claims 1 to 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 are reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007