Appeal No. 2002-0587 Page 11
Application No. 08/922,300
Martin, in order to gradually lower the bias voltage to
transistor 58” and asserts (id.) that "however, transistor 58 is
not equivalent to H/V processor constant voltage circuit 131
utilized by the Admitted prior art of Appellant's Fig. 2." We
need not address the issue of whether it would have been obvious
to replace Martin's resistors 61 and 62 with a diode capacitor
network because the teaching of Martin that the voltages decay
off at a slow enough rate to turn on transistor 58 inherently
suggests that an RC circuit is used which will discharge
according to a time constant. In addition, appellant does not
elaborate as to why appellant considers transistor 58 to not be
equivalent to H/V processor constant voltage circuit 131. We
observe that the H/V processor constant voltage circuit 131 is
found in the admitted prior art. Because Martin teaches
providing a horizontal deflection control circuit with voltage
source +V4 and +V5 that cause the horizontal deflection yoke to
discharge by providing a slow voltage decay to transistor 58 of
the horizontal deflection output circuit, we find that an artisan
would have been taught to provide the slow voltage decay circuit
of the horizontal deflection control circuit 36 of Martin at the
voltage source V1 of the admitted prior art because as stated in
the admitted prior art (page 3):
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007