Appeal No. 2003-2072
Application No. 09/735,439
is connected to terminal 2 under this condition, Hamano's common-
base transistor is connected to ground and is non-conducting,
hence, acting as a switch. Therefore, we find that the
combination proposed by the Examiner would provide a switching
function in the time domain as well.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner has not pointed
to any suggestion in Miyata that any form of output filtering is
needed. Appellant points out that Miyata teaches a microwave
switching circuit. Appellant argues that the proposed
combination of using Hamano's low-pass filter would block the
signals of interest. See page 4 of Appellant's brief.
When determining obviousness, "[t]he factual inquiry whether
to combine references must be thorough and searching." In re
Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2002),
citing McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1351-52,
60 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2001). "It must be based on
objective evidence of record." Id. Our reviewing court further
states that "[w]hile this court indeed warns against employing
hindsight, its counsel is just that - a warning. That warning
does not provide a rule of law that an express, written
motivation to combine must appear in prior art references before
1010
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007