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