Appeal No. 1998-1503
Application No. 08/676,907
We have reviewed the evidence before us, including, inter
alia, the arguments of appellant and the examiner and the
applied references and we conclude therefrom that although the
examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to the claimed subject matter, shifting the burden
to appellant, appellant has presented an argument against the
prima facie case which has not, in our view, been adequately
addressed by the examiner. Accordingly, while we find the
decision here to be a close call, we are constrained to find
for appellant.
More specifically, the examiner has applied Suquet to
show circuitry for regulating current in an inductive load.
That circuitry, shown in Suquet’s Figure 2A, for example,
includes the claimed transistor, comparator and measuring
resistor connected in a like manner to achieve a similar
result but for the claimed “selectively variable reference
signal” and the claimed “reciprocating pump.” The examiner
relies on Takahashi to show a variable reference voltage by
showing a two level reference voltage and argues that it would
have been obvious to employ such a variable reference signal
in the circuit of Suquet. We do not disagree and, in fact, in
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007