Appeal No. 1998-0507
Application No. 08/457,701
and claims 76-87 will stand or fall together with regard to the rejection over Morinaga,
Gerfast and Müller.
Turning first to the rejection based on Sato, Kitajewski and Schaefer, we will not
sustain this rejection because we agree with appellants that Kitajewski is nonanalogous art
and is not properly combinable with Sato and Schaefer.
With regard to claims 21 and 22, the examiner contends that Sato discloses the
claimed invention but for pulsing the power to the Hall element and an enclosure
surrounding the magnets.
The examiner employs Schaefer for a teaching of the enclosure and appellants do
not dispute this use of Schaefer nor do they dispute the unobviousness of providing an
enclosure so this is not an issue before us.
Appellants do dispute the examiner’s use of Kitajewski for a teaching of pulsing the
current to a Hall element. The examiner contends that it would have been obvious to have
pulsed the power to the Hall effect device of Sato in order to reduce power consumption of
the device, as disclosed by Kitajewski.
While the examiner never specifically indicates elements within Sato which
correspond to the explicitly claimed elements, e.g., a Hall sensor, appellants apparently
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007