Appeal No. 98-0580
Application No. 07/728,042
Claims 26 through 30 stand rejected under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 because of the lack of written
description in the originally filed disclosure for claimed
subject matter.
Claims 19 through 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Kornrumpf in view of Pivnyak and
Dale.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
With the exception of the written description rejection
of claim 30 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, all
of the rejections of record are reversed.
Turning first as we must to the indefiniteness rejection,
we find nothing indefinite about the term “sum,” or the
phrases “a unidirectional voltage,” “in substantive effect,”
and “by way of the diodes” in the claims. The term “sum” is
consistent with appellant’s description (specification, page
9) of the combined voltage on the two capacitors EC1 and EC2.
With respect to the phrase “unidirectional voltage,” Figures 1
and 2 of the drawing clearly show that the output of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007