Appeal No. 96-0499
Application 07/891,671
voltage in Riesland [Id. at pages 3-4]. The examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to reduce the number of turns in the secondary winding in
view of the teachings of Riesland and Munson and the level of skill in the
art.
Appellant argues that neither Riesland nor Munson teaches increasing
the secondary winding turns and that the examiner has pointed to nothing in
the applied prior art which supports the obviousness of this claimed
limitation. Appellant also disputes the examiner’s contention that the
Riesland lamp as modified by Munson would inherently have the advantages of
eliminating peak current and harmonic distortion as recited in claim 13.
Appellant also argues that the teachings of Riesland and Munson are not
properly combinable because Riesland suggests reducing the voltage in the lamp
circuit while Munson advocates maintaining a constant voltage across the lamp
filament. We basically agree with all of appellant’s arguments.
We agree with appellant that there is basically no motivation to
modify the lamp of Riesland with the constant voltage of Munson in the absence
of an improper attempt to reconstruct appellant’s claimed invention in
hindsight. We also agree with the argument that there is no suggestion in the
references to increase the number of secondary turns as recited in claim 13.
The examiner’s attempt to demonstrate that appellant’s invention is in
accordance with the laws of physics misses the point of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Of
course the invention complies with the applicable laws of physics. There is
no teaching within the applied references, however, that the result achieved
by appellant should be accomplished in the manner specifically claimed by
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007