Ex parte KANAI - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1997-2340                                       Page 3           
          Application No. 08/329,687                                                  


          The distribution relieves the over-voltage before any                       
          components are damaged.                                                     


              Claim 6, which is representative for our purposes,                     
          follows:                                                                    
                    6.   A switching circuit protection method                        
               comprising the steps of:                                               
                    detecting the self-firing of at least one                         
               switching element due to an over-voltage in a                          
               switching circuit having multiple parallel circuits;                   
                    applying a firing pulse to all the switching                      
               elements in the switching circuit in response to the                   
               detected self-firing; and                                              
                    firing all un-fired switching elements at the                     
               same time due to the firing pulse.                                     


               Besides the appellant’s admitted prior art (AAPA), the                 
          references relied on in rejecting the claims follow:                        
          Mitsuoka                 4,697,219                Sep. 29, 1987             
               Takahashi                4,796,146                Jan.                 
               3, 1989.                                                               


          Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious                  
          over AAPA in view of Takahashi and Mitsuoka.  Rather than                   
          repeat the arguments of the appellant or examiner in toto, we               







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007