Appeal No. 1996-3275
Application No. 08/038,469
The examiner relies on the admitted prior art [APA]
depicted in Figure 2, as well as on the following reference:
Tamoto 4,823,247 Apr. 18, 1989
Claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 13 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over APA in view of Tamoto.2
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
As appellants explain in their specification, it was
known to use a battery connection circuit for connecting
battery power to the input of the DC to AC inverter in a UPS
system. However, these conventional systems did not involve a
power factor correction device which further complicates the
problem of maintaining integrity of the neutral. The
specification points out, at page 2, that the “task of
2We note that the examiner’s answer does not set forth a
formal statement of the grounds for rejection but based on the
final rejection and the rationale in the answer, as well as
appellants’ understanding of the rejection as set forth in the
brief, it is clear that the claims are being rejected under 35
U.S.C. 103 based on the admitted prior art in view of Tamoto.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007