Appeal No. 2003-2072
Application No. 09/735,439
a finding of obviousness. Stated differently, this court has
consistently stated that a court or examiner may find a
motivation to combine prior art references in the nature of the
problem to be solved." Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270,
1276, 69 USPQ2d 1686, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Also see Pro-Mold &
Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573,
37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Display Techs. Inc. v.
Paul Flum Ideas, Inc., 282 F.3d 1340, 1346-47 (Fed. Cir. 2002);
In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir.
1996).
The Examiner points out that it is notoriously well known in
the art to add a low-pass filter at the output of a circuit for
rejecting unwanted high frequency signals. Furthermore, the
Examiner points out that Hamano's low-pass filter would not
filter out all of the signals of interests provided by the Miyata
circuit. The Examiner points out that Hamano's Figure 10 shows
that the low-pass filter would allow microwaves from the range of
30Mz to 35 Ghz to pass through and only the very high frequency
signals would be blocked. See pages 5 and 6 of the answer.
Upon our review of Hamano, we agree with the Examiner's
findings that Hamano's low-pass filter, shown in Figure 10, would
1111
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007