Appeal No. 2001-1444
Application No. 08/994,706
offset a voltage noise, requires a mismatching of impedances
rather than the equality of impedances as claimed.
After careful review of the applied Yamashita reference in
light of the arguments of record, we are in agreement with
Appellants’ position as stated in the Briefs. While it is proper
for an Examiner to consider, not only the specific teachings of a
reference, but inferences a skilled artisan might draw from them,
it is equally important that the teachings of prior art
references be considered in their entirety. See In re Preda, 401
F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968); W.L. Gore & Assocs.
v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550, 220 USPQ 303, 311 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
In particular, in order for us to accept the Examiner’s
conclusions in the present factual situation, we would have to
improperly selectively ignore significant portions of the
disclosure of the Yamashita reference. In our view, the skilled
artisan, considering the teachings of Yamashita, would be led
away from the approach as set forth in Appellants’ claims, i.e.,
the selection of a load resistance value that is approximately
equal to a characteristic impedance of a power distribution
circuit. We reach this conclusion in view of the express
disclosure at column 5, lines 10-31 of Yamashita which indicates
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007