Ex parte DOHT et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 97-1408                                                          
          Application No. 08/210,979                                                  


               Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it               
          reads as follows:                                                           
               1.  A method for controlling the working points of a                   
          series-resonant-circuit inverter, comprising the steps of:                  
               (a) determining a phase-angle actual value of a                        
          measurable state variable of a load circuit, said state                     
          variable having a phase-frequency characteristic which is                   
          monotonically decreasing;                                                   
               (b) setting a value of a phase-angle setpoint in                       
          correspondence to said phase-angle actual value;                            
               (c) defining a phase-angle system deviation based on the               
          phase-angle actual value and the phase-angle setpoint; and                  
               (d) setting the frequency of an inverter in                            
          correspondence with said defined phase-angle system deviation.              
               The references relied on by the examiner are:                          
          Schutten et al. (Schutten)         4,951,185           Aug. 21,             
          1990                                                                        
          Oruganti et al. (Oruganti), “Resonant Power Processors: Part                
          II - Methods of Control,” 1984 Industry Applications Society                
          Proceedings, pages 868 through 878.                                         
               Claims 1 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103               
          as being unpatentable over Schutten in view of Oruganti.                    
                                       OPINION                                        
               We have carefully considered the entire record before us,              
          and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1                   
          through 18.                                                                 

                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007