Appeal No. 1999-1790
Application 08/707,206
last clause of each independent claim (1, 10 and 19) on appeal. We
agree with this assessment by the examiner of Waltz alone failing
to teach within 35 U.S.C. § 103 the subject matter of each of these
independent claims on appeal.
Notwithstanding appellants’ views expressed in the brief that
Oyama is not analogous art, for the sake of rendering this decision,
we assume that it is to simply our analyses. According to the prior
art discussed at columns 1 and 2 of Oyama, when the prior art power
supply voltages are operated at different levels for a specific
prior art electromagnetic coil drive device, this necessitated a
complete duplication of circuit elements, which was considered a
disadvantage in the art. Oyama’s contribution to the art is a
circuit design that decreased dramatically the number of different
electronic circuit elements while still permitting the overall
system operation at plural, different power supply voltage levels.
Oyama’s invention, therefore, is primarily directed at an
improvement over a specific prior art approach.
We generally agree with appellants’ assessment of the
references beginning at page 9 of the brief including appellants’
view that Waltz relates to an electromagnet lock assembly "wherein
the electromagnet is normally supplied with a steady, non-pulsed
baseline current and voltage. When the locking occurs, a single
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007