Appeal No. 2001-1893
Application No. 09/195,297
Reply Brief (Paper No. 12) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which
stand rejected.
OPINION
With regard to instant claim 1, the section 103 rejection notes that Moisin fails to
expressly disclose “the change in the duty ratio being ramped to occur incrementally
over a plurality of cycles.” (Answer at 4.) However, the ramped change in the duty ratio
is deemed to be inherent, or an “obvious design choice.” (Id. at 4-5.) The examiner
points to language in columns 7 and 11 of the reference (id. at 6-7), describing the duty
cycle “approaching” or “reaching” percentage levels, as support that Moisin teaches a
gradual or ramped change in duty ratio, rather than an “immediate” or “sudden” change.
However, we agree with appellants (Reply Brief at 3) that the cited sections of
Moisin do not establish that the reference teaches a ramped change in duty ratio “so as
to occur incrementally over a plurality of cycles,” as required by instant claim 1. To
establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence “must make clear that the missing
descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and
that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d
743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations omitted).
We find the most pertinent part of the reference, with respect to the issue in
controversy, to be the description of the circuitry for dimming level signal 12 and pulse
width modulator 10 (Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 57-64). The reference at column 6, line 50 through
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007