Appeal No. 1998-0512
Application No. 08/477,238
The examiner apparently recognizes that Brownell merely
"shows the basic claimed invention showing rerouting and
altering spacing between conductor traces on a circuit board"
(Final Rejection, page 2) and, therefore, turns to Sato. The
examiner states (Final Rejection, page 2) that Sato "shows and
discloses specific through-board crossovers and ... states
that the magnetic fluxes are segated [sic] by particular
adjacent circuit sections." The examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to modify Brownell "by providing the
more sophisticated cross talk-reduction circuitry of ...
[Sato] to achieve the desired working range of acceptable
radioactive [sic, radiative] noise reduction."
In a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent
upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the examiner is required to provide a reason from some
teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior art as a
whole, or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art, why one having ordinary skill in the
pertinent art would have been led to modify the prior art to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007