Ex Parte Pollet et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 24, 2009

10113596 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 24, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte THIERRY POLLET and STEPHANE BLOCH
____________

Appeal 2009-0166
Application 10/113,596
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided:1 February 25, 2009
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and KARL D.
EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 CFR § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-0166
Application 10/113,596

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants invented a hybrid for digital subscriber line
communication systems which comprises a balancing circuit for matching
the input impedance of a transmission loop. Specifically, the balancing
circuit comprises plural series-connected groups (10) of components, where
each series-connected group comprises an adjustable resistor (R), inductor
(L), and capacitor (C) connected in parallel. Each RLC group is designed to
match a peak in the spectrum of the loop.2 Figure 3 of the present disclosure
is reproduced below for clarity:

Reproduction of Figure 3 of the Present Disclosure Showing Balancing
Circuit With Plural Series-Connected Groups of Adjustable RLC
Components Connected in Parallel

Claims 1, 2, and 8 are illustrative with the key disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. Hybrid, for a digital subscriber line communication system,
comprising:

2 See generally Spec. 6:3-16; Abstract; Figs. 1 and 3.
2
Appeal 2009-0166
Application 10/113,596

means for injecting a transmit signal into a loop,

means for extracting a receive signal from said loop, and

a balancing circuit for matching the input impedance of said loop,
wherein said balancing circuit comprises a plurality of groups, each of the
groups comprising a resistor, an inductor and a capacitor, connected in
parallel, and

wherein said plurality of groups are connected together in series.

2. Hybrid according to claim 1, wherein at least one of said resistor,
said capacitor and said inductor of each of said groups is tuneable.

8. A hybrid according to claim 2, wherein at least one of said resistor,
said capacitor and said inductor of each of said groups are adjustable,
wherein a value of said resistor, said capacitor and said inductor is adjusted
with continuity.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Pinel US 3,848,098 Nov. 12, 1974
Nishimura US 5,133,007 Jul. 21, 1992

1. The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 as
failing to comply with the written description requirement (Ans. 3-4).
2. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 4-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Nishimura and Pinel (Ans. 4-9).
3
Appeal 2009-0166
Application 10/113,596

Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
refer to the Brief and the Answer3 for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make
in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REJECTION
The Examiner takes the position that the Specification does not
support the limitation of claim 8 which calls for the value of the resistor,
capacitor, and inductor to be adjusted with continuity. Although the
Examiner acknowledges that the Specification supports that these
components are tuneable, the Examiner nonetheless concludes that the
Specification does not support adjusting the components’ values with
continuity as claimed (Ans. 3-4). The Examiner takes a similar position
with respect to claim 10 (Id.).
Appellants, however, contend that, in the context of electronics, the
term “'tune' can be defined as 'adjustment of a receiver or circuit for
maximum response to a given signal or frequency.’” As such, Appellants
argue, attaining a maximum response from such a signal would be
impossible without a continuous adjustment, since mere switching would not
provide the requisite level of precision to achieve this end (Br. 9). In any
event, Appellants further note that each of the components shown in Figure
3 of the present application is variable (Br. 9-10).

3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed Apr. 13, 2007
and the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 18, 2007.
4
Appeal 2009-0166
Application 10/113,596

The issue before us, then, is as follows:

ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
disclosure of the present application fails to support adjusting the recited
components’ values with continuity as claimed in claims 8 and 10 so as to
violate the written description requirement under § 112, first paragraph?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure must
convey with reasonable clarity to skilled artisans that Appellants were in
possession of the claimed invention as of the filing date. Vas-Cath Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

ANALYSIS
We will not sustain the Examiner’s written description rejection of
claims 8 and 10. As Appellants indicate (Br. 9), each component in Figure 3
of the present application is shown schematically as a variable element (i.e.,
a variable resistor, variable inductor, or variable capacitor).
It is well known in the art that these variable electronic components
are continuously adjustable (i.e., they can be adjusted to particular values
with precision within a certain range of adjustment, and are not limited to
discrete steps within that range). For example, variable capacitors typically
have a set of parallel plates whose relative spacing can be adjusted by
5
Appeal 2009-0166
Application 10/113,596

moving a plate or set of plates relative to each other.4 Variable resistors can
be implemented in the form of potentiometers (three-terminal devices) and
rheostats (two-terminal devices equivalent to those shown in Figure 3 of the
present application) which enable continuously adjusting resistance within a
particular range.5 Likewise, it is well known to continuously vary the
inductance of a variable inductor via tuning screws, slugs, and rollers.6
Based on these well known characteristics of variable resistors,
capacitors, and inductors, ordinarily skilled artisans would therefore readily
understand from the schematic symbols in Figure 3 of the present
application that these components would be adjustable “with continuity”
(i.e., capable of continuous adjustment). Therefore, we find that the present
disclosure conveys with reasonable clarity to skilled artisans that Appellants
were in possession of the invention claimed in claims 8 and 10 as of the
filing date. See Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563-64.

4 See, e.g., Delton T. Horn, Basic Electronics Theory, 4th ed., 1994, at 75-
76, available at
http://books.google.com/books?id=lrN8wLFL3R4C&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76
&dq=schematic+symbols+%22variable+capacitor%22&source=web&ots=S
P1KAy5B6y&sig=iwRD1QA1cSNe9X8DjZFamNZZsKM&hl=en&ei=Syi
YSbD8EZm0sQOyhbyEAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#
PPA76,M1 (last visited Feb. 15, 2009) (discussing variable capacitors).
5 See id. at 23-26 (discussing variable resistors).
6 See id. at 109 (discussing variable inductors); see also Stan Gibilisco,
Teach Yourself Electricity and Electronics, 4th ed., 2006, at 396, available
at
http://books.google.com/books?id=tqJ0Bz6zjnYC&pg=PA396&dq=%22var
iable+inductor%22+roller&ei=oC6YSYHJLYWekwTR_aXmCQ#PPA396,
M1 (distinguishing a roller inductor from an inductor with switch-selectable
taps for use in an oscillator circuit).
6
Appeal 2009-0166
Application 10/113,596

For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s written description rejection of claims 8 and 10. Therefore,
we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Claims 1 and 6
Regarding representative claim 1,7 the Examiner contends that
Nishimura discloses all of the claimed subject matter except for the
balancing circuit to comprise plural series-connected groups of components,
where each group comprises a resistor, inductor, and a capacitor (RLC)
connected in parallel as claimed. The Examiner, however, takes the position
that this distinction merely constitutes a duplication of parts with “no
patentable significance” (Ans. 5). In any event, the Examiner relies on Pinel
for teaching that cascading two RLC resonators together would increase the
order of the balance circuit to enable a closer impedance match, and
therefore, providing the series-connected groups as claimed would have
been obvious to achieve this end (Ans. 4-6, 11). The Examiner adds that this
modification would also increase the quality factor (Q) of the balance
circuits (Ans. 11, 13, 15).
Appellants argue that since (1) Nishimura’s system selects only one
balance circuit 4 or 5 at a given time, and (2) these balance circuits are
calibrated for a different distance, coupling these balance circuits together in

7 Appellants present arguments directed to claim 1, but do not separately
argue claim 6. See Br. 10-16. Accordingly, we group these claims together
and select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
7
Appeal 2009-0166
Application 10/113,596

series would change Nishimura’s principle of operation and render it
unsuitable for its intended purpose (Br. 10-12).
Appellants add that Nishimura also fails to teach or suggest
duplicating parts within either balance circuit 4 or 5 (Br. 13). According to
Appellants, even if these circuit components were duplicated as the
Examiner proposes, redundant impedance matching would apparently result
(Br. 16).
Appellants also contend that Pinel does not cure the deficiencies of
Nishimura. According to Appellants, Pinel does not teach or suggest plural
series-connected groups of parallel RLC components, but rather teaches a
parallel arrangement of (1) a low audio frequency shaping network 42; (2) a
resistively-damped series resonant circuit 50; and (3) a high audio frequency
shaping network 44.
The issues before us, then, are as follows:

ISSUES
(1) Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Nishimura and Pinel collectively teach or suggest an impedance-matching
balancing circuit with plural series-connected groups of components, where
each group comprises RLC components connected in parallel, in rejecting
claim 1 under § 103?
(2) Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of these
references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

8
Appeal 2009-0166
Application 10/113,596

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence:
1. Nishimura discloses a side-tone correction circuit for a two-
wire/four-wire conversion circuit used in a facsimile apparatus combined
with a telephone unit (Nishimura, col. 1, ll. 5-10).
2. The correction circuit eliminates the side tone from the reception
side of the conversion circuit by correcting the input impedance of the
reception side amplification circuit by using multiple balance circuits 4 and
5. Each balance circuit has its own impedance that is analogous to the
impedance of various telephone lines (i.e., simulating near-end and distant
end connections) to prevent deterioration of the received audio signal sound
quality caused by impedance mismatches (Nishimura, col. 2, ll. 22-36; col.
4, ll. 1-15; Figs. 1 and 2).
3. The balance circuits are formed by (1) inductances L11, L21; (2)
capacitances C1, C2; and (3) resistances R11, R12, R21, and R22
(Nishimura, col. 4, ll. 1-3; Fig. 2). As shown in Figure 2, balance circuit 4
comprises the following components connected in parallel: (1) capacitor C1
(and series-connected resistor R11); (2) resistor R12; and (3) inductor L11.
Similarly, balance circuit 5 comprises the following components connected
in parallel: (1) capacitor C2 (and series-connected resistor R21); (2) resistor
R22; and (3) inductor L21 (Nishimura, Fig. 2). Figure 2 of Nishimura is
reproduced below showing each balance circuit’s respective parallel RLC
configuration:

9
Appeal 2009-0166
Application 10/113,596

Reproduction of Nishimura’s Figure 2 Showing Each Balance Circuit’s
Parallel RLC Configuration

4. Upon receiving an incoming call, an operator manually activates
switch 6 to selectively connect a particular balance circuit 4 or 5 to the non-
inverting input of operational amplifier 7 depending on whether the operator
determines the terminal sending the call is near or far away. As a result, the
impedance is changed accordingly and the side tone is eliminated
(Nishimura, col. 4, ll. 16-54; Figs. 1 and 3). Figure 1 of Nishimura is
reproduced below showing this side tone correction circuit.

10
Appeal 2009-0166
Application 10/113,596

Reproduction of Nishimura’s Figure 1 Showing Side Tone Correction
Circuit 9 Comprising Switch 6 that Selectively Connects Balance
Circuit 4 or 5

5. Pinel provides a balance network for a telephone two-wire to four-
wire hybrid transformer which provides improved matching and thereby
improves the trans-hybrid loss when connected to an inductively loaded
telephone line or cable (Pinel, col. 1, ll. 5-10; col. 2, ll. 9-19; Fig. 1).
6. The network comprises a series-connected combination of:
(1) a shunt connected resistive-capacitive low audio-frequency
shaping network 42 (comprising the combination of resistor 45 and capacitor
46);
(2) a line approximating resistance 43; and
(3) a shunt resonant high audio-frequency shaping network 44
(comprising the combination of inductor 47 and capacitor 48) (Pinel, col. 2,
ll. 19-24; col. 4, ll. 20-28; Fig. 2).
7. The balance network further comprises a resistively-damped series
resonant circuit 50, including a resistor 50, inductor 52, and a capacitor 53,
which coacts with the balance of the network components to provide a better
11
Appeal 2009-0166
Application 10/113,596

match with an inductively loaded telephone line (Pinel, col. 4, ll. 34-41; Fig.
2).
8. As an alternative embodiment, inductor 52 and capacitor 53 may
be placed in series with the resistor 43 (Pinel, col. 4, ll. 44-57; Fig. 2).
9. Nishimura states that the balance circuit is not limited to two
circuits, and more than two circuits can be used. Also, any type of balance
circuit may be used so long as it provides (1) the impedance similar to the
impedance of the telephone line, and (2) a phase relation between the signals
sent to the inverting and non-inverting terminals of the operational amplifier
7 (Nishimura, col. 5, ll. 54-66).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966).
Discussing the question of obviousness of claimed subject matter
involving a combination of known elements, KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007), explains:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [v. AG
12
Appeal 2009-0166
Application 10/113,596

Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson's-Black Rock[,
Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are
illustrative—a court must ask whether the improvement is more
than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740. If the claimed subject matter cannot be fairly
characterized as involving the simple substitution of one known element for
another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art
ready for the improvement, a holding of obviousness can be based on a
showing that “there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements
in the fashion claimed.” Id. at 1740-41. Such a showing requires
“some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness” . . . . [H]owever,
the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would employ.

Id. at 1741 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
If the Examiner’s burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
Appellants to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 6
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 1 which calls for, in pertinent
part, an impedance-matching balancing circuit with plural series-connected
13
Appeal 2009-0166
Application 10/113,596

groups of components, where each group comprises RLC components
connected in parallel. First, it is undisputed that Nishimura teaches every
claimed feature of claim 1 except for the plural groups of parallel RLC
components. Nishimura does, however, teach that each balancing circuit
comprises a parallel RLC circuit, respectively (FF 3).
Although the balance circuits 4 and 5 are selectively switched such
that only one of these circuits is connected to the amplifier 7 at any given
time (FF 4), we nevertheless see no reason why each respective balance
circuit could not comprise plural series-connected groups of parallel RLC
components. First, it is fundamental that impedances in series are additive;
that is, the equivalent impedance resulting from multiple series-connected
impedances is merely the sum of the impedances. 8
Thus, by using fundamental equivalent circuit implementation
techniques, ordinarily skilled artisans (i.e., electrical engineers) could have
readily achieved the equivalent impedance provided by each parallel RLC
circuit of the balancing circuits 4 and 5 (FF 3) via a cascaded arrangement of
two or more similar RLC circuits in series. That is, by appropriately
selecting the values of resistance, capacitance, and inductance for each of
these respective RLC groups (e.g., the impedance of each of two RLC
groups was one-half of the impedance for the single RLC group shown in
Figure 2 of Nishimura), the same effective impedance of a single RLC group

8 See James William Nilsson & Susan A. Riedel, Electric Circuits, 8th ed.,
2007, available at
http://books.google.com/books?id=sxmM8RFL99wC&pg=PA348&dq=equi
valent+impedance+%22z1+%2B+z2%22&lr=&ei=LWSYSdKRG6WQkAS
Iue3lCQ#PPA348,M1 (last visited Feb. 15, 2009) (“Impedances in series
can be combined into a single impedance by simply adding the individual
impedances.”).
14
Appeal 2009-0166
Application 10/113,596

could be achieved by the collective impedance of both cascaded groups (i.e.,
the impedances would effectively add to produce the equivalent impedance).
Such an equivalent circuit would hardly be redundant as Appellants
contend (Br. 16) as it would collectively produce the equivalent impedance
as that provided by a single group. That Nishimura expressly states that any
type of balance circuit can be used so long as it provides a similar
impedance and requisite phase relation (FF 9) only bolsters our conclusion
that an equivalent circuit with two series-connected groups of RLC
components would have been a predictable variation over a single group.
For this reason alone, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 1. Although the Examiner’s reliance on Pinel
is merely cumulative to Nishimura, we nonetheless find no error in the
Examiner’s reliance on Pinel for teaching such a cascaded arrangement.
Pinel teaches providing a balance network 15 comprising the
following elements effectively connected in series: (1) a shunt-connected
resistive-capacitive low audio-frequency shaping network 42; (2) a line
approximating resistance 43; and (3) a shunt resonant high audio-frequency
shaping network 44 (FF 6). Although the resistively damped series resonant
circuit 50 itself may be in parallel to these other components, the
combination of the series resonant circuit 50 and the resistor 43 is actually in
series with (1) the combination of the low-frequency shaping network 42
and capacitor 49, and (2) high-frequency shaping network 44, respectively.
See FF 6 and 7. This relationship between these elements is shown in the
schematic diagram of Figure 2 of Pinel, reproduced below for clarity:

15
Appeal 2009-0166
Application 10/113,596

Figure 2 of Pinel Showing Series Connection Between (1) the
Combination of Network 42 and Capacitor 49; (2) the Network
Comprising the Combination of 43 and 50; and (3) Network 44.

Thus, the effective impedance seen at the terminals 40 and 41 would
be the sum of the impedances of these three distinct networks that are
effectively connected in series, namely (1) the combination of the low-
frequency shaping network 42 and capacitor 49; (2) the combination of the
series resonant circuit 50 and the resistor 43; and (3) high-frequency shaping
network 44. We reach this conclusion emphasizing that although Pinel
separately identifies circuit 50 and resistor 43, the effective impedance of
these elements can collectively be considered as a single impedance—an
impedance that is in series with the respective impedances of the networks
(1) and (3) noted above. That Pinel teaches that the inductor 52 and
capacitor 53 may be placed in series with the resistor 43 (FF 8) only bolsters
this conclusion.
Moreover, we find the Examiner’s rationale as to why ordinarily
skilled artisans would modify Nishimura in light of the teachings of Pinel
persuasive, namely to increase (1) the order of the balance circuit to enable a
16
Appeal 2009-0166
Application 10/113,596

closer impedance match (Ans. 4-6, 11), and (2) the quality factor (Q) of the
balance circuits (Ans. 11, 13, 15). Appellants have not persuasively rebutted
this position—a position that is supported by articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness
conclusion.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. Therefore, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, and claim 6 which falls with
claim 1.

Claims 2 and 9
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 which calls
for at least one of the resistor, capacitor, and inductor of each group to be
tuneable. The Examiner relies on Nishimura’s switching between balance
networks for this limitation (Ans. 7).
Although the Examiner’s point regarding a “tuneable” component in
the claim (Ans. 15) is technically correct to the extent that it does not require
a continuously adjustable component, we nevertheless note that the
individual components in the balance circuits 4 and 5 appear to be fixed
values. See FF 3. However, since the claim merely calls for “tuneable”
components broadly, these fixed value components would still meet this
limitation since they can be “tuned” by merely exchanging the components
for similar components with different values, or even adding similar
components in conjunction with those components to obtain different
equivalent values. Even temperature variations can change component
values such that they would effectively be “tuneable” under these conditions.
17
Appeal 2009-0166
Application 10/113,596

Nonetheless, as noted previously in connection with the written
description rejection, providing adjustable components in lieu of fixed
components is well known, and therefore would have been a predictable
variation to obtain a desired component value within a range of values. As
such, providing such variable components in Nishimura’s balance circuits to
vary the impedance would have been tantamount to the predictable use of
prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious
improvement. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 2. Therefore, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, and dependent claim 9 which
was not separately argued.

Claims 4 and 7
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim
49 which calls for, in pertinent part, a serially coupled resistor. We agree
with the Examiner (Ans. 7, 15) that by providing multiple RLC groups in
series (e.g., more than two), the resistive component of one of those groups
would effectively function as a “serially coupled resistor” at least with
respect to the other serially-connected groups. We see no reason why such
an arrangement could not be provided for each balancing circuit of
Nishimura for the reasons noted previously.

9 Appellants argue claims 4 and 7 together as a group. See Br. 17.
Accordingly, we select claim 4 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
18
Appeal 2009-0166
Application 10/113,596

For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 4. Therefore, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, and claim 7 which falls with
claim 4.

Claims 5 and 11
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 which calls
for the serially coupled resistor to be tuneable. Our previous discussion in
connection with claim 2 and the well-known usage of such components
noted with respect to the written description rejection applies equally here
and we therefore incorporate that discussion by reference.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 5. Therefore, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, and dependent claim 11
which was not separately argued.

Claims 8 and 10
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim
810 which calls for, in pertinent part, at least one of the resistor, capacitor,
and inductor of each group to be adjusted with continuity. Our previous
discussion in connection with claim 2 and the well-known usage of such
continuously-adjustable components noted with respect to the written
description rejection applies equally here and we therefore incorporate that

10 Appellants argue claims 8 and 10 together as a group. See Br. 17-18.
Accordingly, we select claim 8 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
19
Appeal 2009-0166
Application 10/113,596

discussion by reference. In short, providing such adjustable components in
Nishimura’s balance circuits to vary the impedance would have been
tantamount to the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at
1740.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 8. Therefore, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, and claim 10 which falls with
claim 8.

Claim 12
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 which calls
for, in pertinent part, the whole current to pass though each element without
branching. As we discussed with respect to claim 1, we see no reason why
an equivalent circuit with two series-connected groups of parallel RLC
components could have been utilized in lieu of a single group of such
components to achieve the same impedance. Since the impedances of each
series-connected group are additive, we see no reason why the entire current
would not pass through each group without branching as claimed.
Appellants’ argument regarding current not passing through both
balance circuits 4 and 5 in Nishimura (Br. 19) is inapposite to the
fundamental engineering principle that each balance circuit can be
implemented as an equivalent circuit of multiple series-connected groups of
parallel RLC components as noted previously.
20
Appeal 2009-0166
Application 10/113,596

For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 12. Therefore, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim.

CONCLUSIONS
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8
and 10 under § 112. Appellants, however, have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4-12 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4-12 is affirmed.
21
Appeal 2009-0166
Application 10/113,596

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20037-3213
22