Appeal No. 1998-0824
Application No. 08/621,767
Importers Int'l, 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239, citing W.
L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d at 1551,
1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-13. In addition, our reviewing
court requires the PTO to make specific findings on a
suggestion to combine prior art references. In re Dembiczak,
175 F.3d 994, 1000-01, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617-19 (Fed. Cir.
1999).
On our review of page 5 of the specification, we find
that Appellants have not admitted that the problem of
unnecessary current consumption of the prior art Figure 6 was
known. We agree that on page 5 of the specification
Appellants state that the Figure 6 circuit has a draw back
represented by the fact that when the power transistor Pw is
off, a certain current consumption occurs. However, we do not
find that the Appellants have stated that this fact was known
to others. Appellants are simply stating that they have
recognized the problem. Furthermore, even if we agreed with
the Examiner that somehow this was an admission by the
Appellants, there still is no admission that it was known what
the source of the problem was or the circuitry to correct the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007