Appeal No. 1998-2513
Application No. 08/171,427
circuit is supplied to an adder circuit 1.” (Brief, page 11.) However, we disagree that
supplying the signal to an adder circuit is the full extent of the teaching. As we have noted
previously herein, we do not find the teachings of Takeda to be limited to those circuit
components which are explicitly disclosed. Moreover, nonobviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231
USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981)).
Claims 1, 5, and 12 (each independent)
We disagree with appellant’s contention, alleged in the Brief at pages 11 and 12,
that the rejection is based on impermissible hindsight. Taneka teaches improving servo
control of a capstan motor by deriving a speed signal from a tracking error signal. This
basis for the suggested modifications to appellant’s prior art Figure 3 arises from the prior
art; not gleaned only from knowledge of appellant’s disclosed improvements. We
therefore are unpersuaded that the rejection is flawed by impermissible hindsight.
Claims 9, 14 (dependent)
Appellant argues (Brief, pages 12 and 13) that the evidence relied upon fails to
show obviousness of the subject matter of claims 9 and 14, which require that the capstan
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007