Appeal No. 97-3673
Application No. 08/251,125
is not comprehendible.
The examiner does further explain the rejection in the
response section of the answer and it appears clear that the
examiner is objecting to the claim language “the magnitude of
the AC output voltage being substantially the same
irrespective of the amount of power being drawn from the AC
terminals.” The examiner apparently takes the position that
because the claim calls for a constant voltage magnitude
irrespective of the amount of power being drawn, this is an
impossibility because in the case where load terminals are
shorted, the voltage thereacross would be zero although the
claims call for a constant voltage magnitude irrespective of
the amount of power drawn. Reading the claim language in view
of the specification, it is clear to us that the specification
describes a regulated induction circuit and we find nothing in
the claim language inconsistent therewith. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
We turn, finally, to the rejection of claims 1 through 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 8
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007