Appeal No. 1997-0211
Application No. 08/252,288
Due to the nature of the device, the system uses the “Law of mathematic Induction” to
determine the appropriate computations.
The Examiner provides a convincing line of reasoning to combine the teachings in
the rejection. Therefore, we disagree with appellant that the Examiner has not provided a
line of reasoning for the motivation to combine the references. (See brief at page 15.)
Appellant argues that there is a difference between the present invention and
Kislovski in that the present invention is for the “normal control” and Kislovski is directed to
“emergency control.” (See brief at pages 15-16.) We find no basis in the claim language
for this argument and appellant has not identified any language in the claim to limit the
claimed invention to “normal control." This argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that the claims “require a system which produces an output
waveform having low harmonic content,” but does not identify any language in claim 1 to
support this argument. (See brief at page 16.) This argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that the proposed combination renders Kislovski inoperative for
its intended purpose. Further, appellant argues that the “Law of mathematic
Induction” will not determine the appropriate quantities. (See brief at pages 16-17.)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007