Appeal No. 1997-0281 Page 7
Application No. 08/351,874
hindsight reconstruction of the invention; ... no suggestion
for making the combination recited in the Office action
appears in the art of record ....” (Appeal Br. at 17.) The
examiner replies, “the fact is that they are art recognized
equivalent which is not the same as pure functional
equivalence as Mr. Dolmovich argues.” (Examiner’s Answer at
10.) He adds, “the selection of any of these known
equivalents to provide a conductive voltage dependent
condition i.e. breakdown, breakover, etc. would be within the
level of ordinary skill in the art.” (Id. at 5.) We agree
with the appellant.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10, and 14 each specifies in pertinent
part the following limitations:
a breakover diode connected in a forwardly biased
manner between the input of the first SCR and the
trigger input of the first SCR, the at least one
breakover diode being responsive to a predetermined
value of a voltage differential ()V) between the two
terminals of the passive network for switching the
first SCR from the high impedance path to the low
impedance path to controllably discharge the
capacitive energy storage device to the igniter
plug.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007