Appeal No. 1998-2867
Application No. 08/362,747
a less modified test signal could have been employed
in a circuit fault detection device, merely
depending on the type of sensor being tested, or the
number of potentially faulty elements in a tested
sensor circuit.
However, the examiner's conclusions are based on an
erroneous assumption that Leiber compares to a reference time
the time a test signal takes to pass through a circuit.
Leiber instead compares the test signal after it passes
through one circuit with the same test signal after it passes
through a second substantially identical circuit. Neither is
a reference time. Further, the examiner's proposed
modifications would involve a complete reconstruction of
Leiber's device with no indication from the art as to how one
would go about such a reconstruction. Lastly, that the prior
art can be modified in the manner suggested by the examiner
does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification. In re Fritch,
972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-4 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Thus, the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness. Consequently, we will not affirm the
rejection of claim 81 and its dependents, claims 82 through
85, and 89.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007