Appeal No. 1998-0456 Page 9
Application No. 08/454,706
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met,
the burden then shifts to the applicant to overcome the prima
facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then
determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole. See id.;
In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed.
Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,
788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052,
189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner's position (final rejection, page 3) is that
Metroka does not disclose the detecting of residual voltage of
the capacitor block. To overcome this deficiency of Metroka,
the examiner turns to Barthel for a teaching of a circuit for
measuring the output voltage of an output capacitor. In the
examiner's opinion, it would have been obvious to "combine the
references in order to take advantage of the additional
function of determining residual capacity of a capacitive
power supply as taught by Barthel in order to warn an operator
of an inadequate power level."
Appellant asserts (brief, page 6) that Metroka and
Barthel, either singly or in combination, do not teach or
suggest a voltage regulator circuit. The examiner responds
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007