Appeal No. 96-4196
Application No. 08/239,010
transformer, and has recognized that grain size of the
polycrystalline ferrite material has a direct relation on
losses (Table 1; column 5, lines 1 through 7), we are of the
opinion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to use the polycrystalline ferrite material
of Johnson in Anderson for the advantage of reducing “heating
losses within the ferrite” (Anderson, column 4, lines 21
through 27).
The very specific teachings in Johnson of a sintered
polycrystalline ferrite material used in a core, and the
accompanying advantageous teachings of heat-loss reduction
based upon specific grain sizes, indicate to us that it would
not be ‘obvious to try’ such a ferrite in Anderson to lessen
the problem of heat loss (Brief, page 9). Appellants’
arguments concerning reducing the loading of an external
supply device during starting to thereby improve the life of
the supply device are not commensurate in scope with the
claimed invention (Brief, pages 7 through 9).
Based upon the foregoing, the obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 10 and 11 is sustained. With respect to the
remainder of the claims on appeal, the granular ferrites
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007