Appeal No. 2004-1839
Application No. 09/921,604
placed in series with an original resistor in a circuit, doubling the total resistance, we do
not see how, instead, replacing the original resistor with one of double the original
value, is unobvious thereover. Note that such an example has particular relevance
since even a simple resistor may be considered a “driving circuit,” as broadly claimed.
Similarly, if adding a driving circuit to the original driving circuit in Young produces a
desirable result, it is not considered unobvious, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §103,
to, instead, “replace” the original driving circuit with one having the driving power equal
to the power of the combination of the two driving circuits that would be employed in
Young to achieve that same result.
We note, again, that appellant does not appear to challenge the disclosure of
such driving circuits by Young. Accordingly, we accept the finding by the examiner that
the repeaters of Young are the type of driving circuits claimed by appellant.
Since appellant has not convinced us of any error in what we view as the
examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the instant claimed subject
matter, we will sustain the rejection of claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is
affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007