Appeal No. 1996-2199
Application 08/191,060
temperatures. We interpret this claim language as requiring
that the plot of temperature versus frequency between the two
predetermined temperatures and the two frequencies take the
form of a conventional hysteresis loop. It is clear from
Ohi’s Figure 5 that no portion of Ohi’s controller operates
with a hysteresis characteristic. Therefore, Ohi does not
teach or suggest this argued limitation of claim 7.
The examiner never specifically addressed this
limitation of claim 7 except to assert that Ohi operated in
the same manner as the claimed invention or to assert that
hysteresis was not claimed. Since hysteresis is claimed in
claim 7 and the examiner has never addressed how Ohi teaches
this claimed characteristic of the controller, we find that
the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of the
obviousness of claim 7.
In summary, even though appellant has nominally
grouped claims 1, 2 and 4-9 together, we find that appellant’s
hysteresis argument only applies to dependent claim 7.
Therefore, we sustain the examiner’s rejection with respect to
claims 1, 2,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007