Appeal No. 96-1560
Application 08/084,366
produce two different outputs from the element. The corresponding power conversion
elements of Powell and Ertz produce only AC outputs and cannot selectively produce DC
outputs as recited in the claims. Thus, we agree with appellants that in order to anticipate
the invention of claims 26, 34 and 49, the structure of the prior art must have the selective
capability recited in the claims. Since neither Powell nor Ertz discloses structure with this
capability, the invention of claims 26-46 and 48-54 is not anticipated by these references
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102.
We now consider the rejection of claim 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Powell or Ertz in view of Kirchberg. Claim 47 depends
from independent claim 34 and recites a microprocessor for controlling the output from the
AC converter. Kirchberg is cited merely for the teaching of a microprocessor controlled
voltage system. Kirchberg does not make up for the deficiencies of Powell and Ertz
discussed above. Since the examiner has not addressed the obviousness of the
selectively operable feature of the claimed invention, the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case for the obviousness of claim 47. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 47.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007