Appeal No. 1998-0507
Application No. 08/457,701
Now, we must determine if Kitajewski is at least reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which appellants were concerned. It is the examiner’s position that
while Kitajewski is not directed to a motor position detecting circuit with a Hall
effect element as the detecting means, Kitajewski “does teach a Hall effect element in an
electronic circuit which is a broad field of endeavor which would include Appellant’s [sic,
Appellants’] claimed invention [answer-page 5].
We find that the artisan involved in motor position detecting circuits and looking for
ways to improve such circuits would have had no reason to look to the telephony arts for
any suggestions on how to improve motor positioning circuits. Merely because references
in these diverse art areas both employ a Hall device is not sufficient reason, in our view, for
the artisan to modify any Hall device used by one in accordance with the Hall device used
by the other. While the examiner reasons 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,” [final rejection-page 2], we are in accordance with
appellants’ view [reply brief-page 4] that it “is not understood how the motivation to reduce
power consumption in a ring tip [sic, trip] detection circuit, even one employing a Hall
device, can reasonably be said to suggest or motivate its combination with references
related to motor construction and control.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007