Appeal No. 2002-0588
Application No. 08/566,206
Knutson and Philips. Additionally, the examiner merely addresses the use of a
capacitor as shown in Figure 1 of Ueda, but does not address the remainder of the
claim limitations as a whole. Therefore, Ueda does not remedy the noted deficiencies,
and we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 9.
With respect to independent claim 19, the examiner adds the teachings of
Yamamoto as the primary reference to the combination of Knutson and Philips. Again,
the examiner sets forth the same basic argument for the combination of the teachings of
these three references. (See answer at pages 6 and 7.) Again, we do not find that the
examiner has established a motivation to combine the various teachings of the three
references to achieve the claimed invention. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection
of independent claim 19 and its dependent claims 20, 21, 24 and 29.
Similarly, the teachings of Matsumoto and Ueda do not remedy the deficiencies
in the base combination. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 23 and
27.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-6, 9, 19-21, 23, 24,
27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007