Appeal No. 1997-0288
Application No. 08/200,123
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
The obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 9 is
reversed.
According to the examiner (Answer, pages 3 and 4):
Saito et al discloses the invention essentially
as claimed including a transformer (T1), diode (Q3),
resistor (R6), a transistor (Q1), a pulse-width
modulator (3) and a voltage dividers [sic] (R2-R4)
as claimed except for the [sic] obtaining the output
of a substantially constant current, variable
voltage output. However, it would have been obvious
to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to obtain the output of a
substantially constant current, variable voltage
output which is merely a designer’s choice, since
all of the essential elements for a constant
current, variable voltage device of the present
invention are present in the cited reference.
In response to the rejection, appellant argues (Brief,
page 4) that “[i]n no manner can a circuit breaker, or even
the ten circuit breakers of Saito, suggest a continuously
operational control arrangement that finely controls output
current to a constant level” because “Saito’s arrangement
operates only to modify or lower the maximum current
threshold, rather than creating a constant current output.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007