Appeal No. 96-1582
Application No. 08/292,928
a rectifier (bridge rectifier 10 in Stupp) connected to the
power line and operative to draw a line current and to provide
a DC voltage across a pair of DC terminals.
As appellant argues, claim 1 requires that the line
current drawn by the rectifier have a “substantially
sinusoidal waveform.”
Whereas the instant claimed invention requires the line
current drawn by the rectifier to have a “substantially
sinusoidal waveform,” as shown, for example, in instant Figure
3d, Figure 2A of Stupp, which is indicative of a voltage, not
current, shows a sinusoidal waveform which has been clipped to
a constant voltage value V Min every half cycle. The waveform
of Stupp’s Figure 2A is, therefore, not “substantially
sinusoidal,” as required by claim 1. Further, even, if by
some stretch of the imagination, Figure 2A of Stupp could be
considered to show a “substantially sinusoidal waveform” of
the line current drawn by the rectifier, instant claim 1
defines a “substantially sinusoidal waveform” as being a
“waveform having not more than 10% total harmonic distortion.”
The examiner has pointed to nothing in the prior art which
suggests that the waveform shown in Figure 2A of Stupp has not
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007