Appeal No. 96-1582
Application No. 08/292,928
First, even the examiner appears to admit that the
magnitude of the voltage at the output of the rectifier in
Stupp is not substantially equal to that of the AC power line
voltage, alleging that they “would be” in the absence of other
circuitry. Even if the examiner’s allegation is assumed to be
correct, the examiner has indicated no motivation or
suggestion in the prior art for making the proposed
modification, viz., eliminating a transformer or other
circuitry from Stupp. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection,
on its face, is in error.
Moreover, Figure 2A of Stupp shows a waveform which
begins as a sinusoidal waveform but then is clipped to a
constant voltage every half cycle whereas the AC power line
voltage has a full sinusoidal waveform. Accordingly, one
cannot say that the instantaneous absolute magnitude of the DC
voltage across the pair of rectifier output terminals in Stupp
is “substantially equal” to that of the AC power line voltage,
as claimed.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007