Appeal No. 1999-1790
Application 08/707,206
modulated pulses in Waltz as required at the end of each independent
claim on appeal.
Therefore, Oyama solves a problem not present or suffered
within Waltz’s own teachings. As indicated earlier, the disclosure
in Oyama is directed primarily at the deficiencies of the admitted
prior art. If we assume for the sake of argument that the general
teaching of Oyama’s device as being an electromagnetic coil drive
device applicable to the electromagnetic coils of the electronic
lock of Waltz, the artisan simply would not have found it desirable
to combine the teachings of Oyama into the system of Waltz. There
is simply no reason based on the art alone and the examiner’s
reasoning to have imported the principles of pulse width modulation
from Oyama into the non-PWM system of Waltz.
We reach this conclusion even in view of the examiner’s further
reliance upon the teaching at column 8, lines 49 through 52 of Oyama
which generally indicates that the teaching value of Oyama may go
beyond electromagnetic switches to other electromagnetic devices.
This is simply not enough motivation in our view for the artisan to
have found it desirable to have incorporated the teachings of Oyama
into Waltz.
Although we recognize that the references may be combined
within 35 U.S.C. § 103, the proper approach to follow within this
statutory provision is that the conclusion of obviousness must be
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007