Appeal No. 95-0325
Application 07/859,616
arguments until a request for reconsideration, there is a strong likelihood that the arguments will
not be considered because they are untimely.
In this case we must reverse the examiner's rejection. The examiner did not consider the
time-varying switching frequency limitation because no support was found in the specification for
this limitation (Examiner's Answer, page 5). Because we find support for the time-varying
switching frequency limitation, the limitation must be addressed in the anticipation rejection.
There are only three transistors in figure 1 of Kuroi. The transistors 13 and 14 in the direct
current stabilizing circuit B operate at a more or less constant frequency to provide a constant
voltage at point F (column 3, lines 16-50) and, thus, do not have a time-varying switching
frequency. The oscillating transistor 23 produces a constant high-frequency signal as evidenced
by the signal at the secondary winding 24c of the oscillation transformer 24 which must be
produced by winding 24a and transistor 23. Thus, transistor 23 does not have a time-varying
switching frequency. The rejection of claims 27-33 and 43-47 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 27-33 and 43-47 are reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007