Appeal No. 1997-0211
Application No. 08/252,288
to a harmonic of the fundamental frequency wherein one quantity corresponds to the varied
switching angle and the other quantity corresponds to the unvaried switching angle. We
disagree with appellant with respect to the lack of a prima facie case of nonobviousness.
The Examiner has set forth the argument that one skilled in the art would have predicted
any desirable quantity depending on the intended use of the system. (See final rejection
at page ii.) We agree with this general premise. Therefore, the general premise of
calculating two quantities with respect to the switching angle would have been obvious as
the Examiner suggests in light of the disclosure by Maddali that the switching angle
changes with the output. Furthermore, as a general premise, the control of the switching
angle would have been based upon the relative closeness of the predicted values to some
desired or preset value. Having the switching angle vary when the varied prediction is
better and vice versa when the unvaried prediction is not better would have been the most
basic control. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that “Kislovski does not teach or suggest the prediction of two
variables, one based on one set of switch operating parameters and the other based on
a different set of operating parameters. . . . to determine the better of the two operating
parameters for selection and use in the succeeding cycle. ” (See brief at page 20.)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007