Appeal No. 1999-2307
Application No. 08/711,074
explains that the alternating current signal of Yoshida would only be used as the second
signal of Kazami. The Examiner argues that it would have been obvious to replace the
second signal of Kazami with the alternating current signal of Yoshida because it relates to
exposed information.
Even if we were to agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to
modify Kazami by substituting the alternating current signal taught by Yoshida, we fail to
find that the Examiner has shown any evidence that it would have been obvious to only
substitute the Yoshida alternating current signal for the second information signal of
Kazami. The Examiner has not come to grips with the fact that if it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the modification of Kazami using the
Yoshida alternating current signal, then it would have been obvious to use the Yoshida
alternating current signal for the second signal as well. The Examiner has not provided any
evidence of obviousness by simply substituting the Yoshida alternating current signal for
just one of the Kazami information signals.
Because neither Kazami nor Yoshida, alone or in combination, teach or suggest
Appellant’s claim limitation, we conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 15
and 17 through 21 as being obvious over Kazami in view of Yoshida.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007