Appeal 2007-0468
Application 10/750,320
1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Obviousness is determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038,
1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellants’ argument throughout the Briefs that the
Examiner has not demonstrated that a voltage-controlled oscillator as
described in Mizuno has a leakage current and a frequency related thereto as
set forth in the claims on appeal.
Turning to the obviousness rejections of claims 3 to 5, 19, 20, 28, and
30, we find that the teachings of Klemmer fail to cure the noted shortcoming
in the teachings of Mizuno. The additionally cited references to Teraoka,
Miyazaki, Kudo and Chen all fail to teach the claimed leakage current and a
frequency related thereto.
CONCLUSION
Anticipation has not been established by the Examiner for claims 1, 2,
6 to 18, 26, 27, and 29. The obviousness of the claimed subject matter has
not been established by the Examiner for claims 3 to 5, 19, 20, 28, and 30
because the teachings of the secondary references fail to cure the noted
shortcoming in the teachings of Mizuno.
DECISION
The anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 6 to 18, 26, 27, and 29 is
reversed, and the obviousness rejections of claims 3 to 5, 19, 20, 28, and 30
are reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013