Appeal No. 1997-0211
Application No. 08/252,288
We disagree with appellant’s arguments directed to the singular reference which neglect to
consider the Maddali reference in the discussion/evaluation. Clearly, skilled artisans
would have realized that it is the system of Maddali which is being modified and that the
basic relationships thereto would have been used in the prediction. This argument is not
persuasive.
Appellant argues that there is no reasonable expectation of success to
“continuously control the switching angles of the switches to produce an output ac [sic]
waveform which has optimized switching angles.” (See brief at page 18.) Again appellant
has not identified language in the claim to support this argument, and we find no clear
support in the language of claim 1 to support the argument with respect to continuous
control. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that the references do not teach “the prediction of two different
quantities related to the harmonic of the output waveform based upon two different
switching angle configurations as required by the Applicant’s claimed invention.” (See
brief at page 19.) Appellant argues that the references do not teach or suggest “means
for predicting a first quantity . . .” Here, appellant argues the language of claim 1. (See
brief at pages 19-20.) The language of claim 1 with respect to prediction is quite
broad. The language of claim 1 requires only that two quantities be determined related
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007