Appeal No. 2005-0449
Application No. 09/498,559
Furthermore, this last mentioned determination is meaningfully
reinforced by the fact that Vargha’s Figure 1 circuit is in no
way described as possessing an active inductor capability1 and by
the fact that this prior art circuit lacks the structure
disclosed by the appellant as being necessary to perform an
active inductor function.
Under the circumstances recounted above, it is clear that
the examiner has failed to carry his burden of providing
persuasive evidence or scientific reasoning to establish the
reasonableness of his belief that Vargha’s Figure 1 circuit is
capable of performing the active inductor function required by
appealed independent claims 14 and 16. It follows that the
examiner likewise has failed to carry his burden of establishing
a prima facie case of anticipation with respect to these claims
or the claims which depend therefrom. Thus, we cannot sustain
the examiner’s section 102 rejection of claims 14-19 as being
anticipated by Vargha.
1
1 On the contrary, as properly indicated by the appellant,
this Figure 1 circuit is disclosed as functioning “to control the
turn-on or turn-off of a load circuit” such as “an inductor”
(column 1, lines 12-14). The fact that this Figure 1 circuit
functions to control the turn-on and turn-off of an inductor load
circuit militates against the examiner’s position that the Figure
1 circuit is capable of performing an active inductor function.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007