Appeal No. 2004-0650 6
Application No. 09/894,265
speed would lead away from the use of a filtering capacitor which
would slow the circuit operation, we find nothing in the disclosure
of Danki, and Appellants have pointed to none, which would support
such a conclusion. Indeed, our review of Danki, which is directed
to a signal level identification circuit, finds no disclosure even
remotely suggesting that transmission speed is a concern.
We further agree with the Examiner (Answer, pages 5 and 6)
that, even if Appellants are correct in their assertion that the
use of a filtering capacitor in Danki would slow circuit operation,
the use of a capacitor would not render Danki’s circuit inoperable.
In our view, which coincides with that expressed by the Examiner,
the skilled artisan would have recognized and appreciated that
speed of operation and noise-free operation are competing
considerations in circuit design, the tolerance of one with respect
to the other being dependent on a particular circuit application.
For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness has not been overcome by
any convincing arguments from Appellant, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of representative claim 1, as well as claims 2-7
and 10-13 which fall with claim 1, is sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007