Appeal No. 1998-1319
Application No. 08/466,188
have interpreted claim 29 as including a constant voltage
during that period.
We note that claims 18 through 27 and 30 through 33
include the phrase "a constant voltage level." However, no
particular period is recited for the constant voltage level.
Turning to the obviousness rejections, for a rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, 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 arrive at the claimed invention. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-
Wiley, 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.
1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988). These showings by
the examiner are an essential part of complying with the
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
The examiner first relies upon appellants' prior art
Figures 1 and 2 (APA), and, recognizing (Answer, page 7) that
APA does not have the function of tone display, applies
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007