Appeal No. 2001-0882 Page 5
Application No. 08/950,965
Here, the examiner has not fairly explained why one of
ordinary skill in this art would have been led to modify the
system of Inoue ‘029 by coupling the feedback control of Inoue
’029 (identified by the examiner as the servo control (312(e),
fig. 5) to the power source and punches of Inoue ‘029 based on
the disclosure of Inoue ’805. Concerning this matter, the servo
control feedback device of Inoue ‘029 (column 10, lines 4-30) is
disclosed as a device useful for operating a pair of servo valves
supplied with hydraulic fluid. The examiner has not shown how
the figure 12 embodiment of Inoue ‘805 would suggest connection
of that servo control feedback device of Inoue ‘029 to the power
source (317, figure 12) of Inoue ‘029 that was identified by the
examiner. The examiner has not specifically identified a
reasonable suggestion or teaching of the desirability of
modifying the system of Inoue ‘029 including the servo control
connections based on the figure 12 embodiment of Inoue ‘805 so as
to arrive at the appellants’ claimed invention.3
3 Appellants (brief, pages 11 and 12 and reply brief, pages
2 and 3), in essence, invoke the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112
in arguing that the claimed functional attributes of the here
claimed system components are not found in the applied Inoue
references. We note, for example, that appellants’
specification, at pages 7 and 8 describes a programmed logic
controller as part of the feedback control to the power source
that provides the function of controlling the power supply during
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007