Appeal No. 1996-3275
Application No. 08/038,469
circuit. We disagree and refer to appellants’ brief, at pages
7-8 for an explanation, with which we agree, as to why the
circuitry of Tamoto does not function as a PFC circuit.
The examiner’s response to appellants’ argument is that
appellants argue limitations which are not in the claim. We
disagree. The instant claims very clearly call for a battery
connection circuit for connecting the battery to the PFC
converter circuit “so that...battery voltage is converted
through said PFC converter circuit...” [independent claims 1
and 9, independent claim 13 providing for similar, but
slightly different language reciting the connection of the
battery connecting circuit to the PFC circuit]. Thus, in
order for Tamoto to have provided the impetus for the artisan
to have modified APA to provide for connection of the battery
directly to the PFC circuit, Tamoto would have needed to
suggest at least a PFC circuit which, notwithstanding the
examiner’s claims to the contrary, it does not.
Accordingly, we find the examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness of the claimed subject matter in view of APA and
Tamoto to be unreasonable and we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 13 under 35
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007