Ex parte OLE K. NILSSEN - Page 4

              Appeal No. 95-0325                                                                                                                       
              Application 07/859,616                                                                                                                   

              page 3).  This is true.  The discussion about the capacitor ESC is about transistor Qs conducting                                        
              intermittently.  Appellant does not explain why figure 3f shows a time-varying switching frequency                                       
              but we see that because the pulses are not of constant width, the switching frequency must be                                            
              time-varying.  Although this pulse width modulation is not described in words as having a                                                
              time-varying switching frequency, there is support for the term in figure 3f.  Appellant does not                                        
              explain where the support is for the limitation of "time-varying at a frequency equal to twice the                                       
              frequency of the AC voltage" in claim 28 or the limitation of "the duty-cycle varies at a frequency                                      
              equal to twice the frequency of the AC voltage" in claim 32.  However, we observe that figure 3f                                         
              shows the switching frequency varying from a high frequency (short pulse width) to a low                                                 
              frequency (wide pulse width) and back to a high frequency during one half cycle of the AC power,                                         
              which broadly supports the "twice the frequency of the AC voltage" limitations of claims 28 and                                          
              32.  The rejection of claims 27-33 and 43-47 is reversed.                                                                                

              35 U.S.C.  102(b)                                                                                                                       
                       Appellant argues only that the feature of "a circuit . . . including a transistor conducting                                    
              intermittently at a time-varying frequency" "is neither described nor suggested by Kuroi" (Brief,                                        
              page 4).  The purpose of an appeal brief is to persuade the examiner that the final rejection is                                         
              wrong and, if the examiner maintains the rejection in the Examiner's Answer, to persuade us that                                         
              the examiner erred.  Appellant's style of argument which merely asserts that a feature is not present                                    
              without discussing the teachings of the reference is not calculated to persuade either the examiner                                      
              or this Board why the reference does not teach the limitation at issue.  If appellant leaves his                                         
                                                                   - 4 -                                                                               

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007