Appeal No. 2002-0543 Page 10
Application No. 09/118,629
For its part, Wobschall uses a one-shot circuit to generate an actuation signal for
a period of time in response to a triggering signal. More specifically, Figure 16-2 shows
"[o]ne-shot multivibrator[s]" that generate an actuation signal, Q, for a period of time, T,
in response to an "input trigger pulse reach[ing] an upper threshold level. . . ." P. 255.
The reference adds that such multivibrators "feature high speed and direct compatibility
with digital systems." Id. Because Kashiwagi or Takabe teach actuating a light for a
period of time in response to a triggering signal, and Wobschall discloses the
desirability of using a one-shot multivibrator to generate an actuation signal for a period
of time in response to a triggering signal, we are persuaded that the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested using a one-shot circuit to actuate a
light for a period of time in response to a triggering signal. Therefore, we affirm the
obviousness rejection of claim 1 and of claims 3-10, which fall therewith.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejections of claims 1 and 3-10 under § 103(a) are affirmed.
"Any arguments or authorities not included in the brief will be refused consideration by
the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. . . ." 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(a).
Accordingly, our affirmance is based only on the arguments made in the briefs. Any
arguments or authorities not included therein are neither before us nor at issue but are
considered waived.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007