Appeal No. 98-0580
Application No. 07/728,042
bridge rectifier BR is a rectified DC voltage VB which is a
“unidirectional voltage.” The phrase “in substantive effect”
is merely used to emphasize that the rectified DC voltage or
“unidirectional voltage” is prevented from exceeding the “sum”
of the two capacitor voltages, and this circuit function is
accomplished with the aid of diodes or “by way of the diodes”
in the circuit. The indefiniteness rejection of claims 19
through 29 and 31 is reversed.
Based upon the foregoing, the written description
rejection of claims 26 through 29 is reversed because
appellant’s disclosure describes circuit conditions under
which the rectified DC voltage or “unidirectional voltage” is
“in substantive effect” prevented from exceeding the magnitude
of the “sum” capacitor voltage. One such circuit condition
occurs when the “absolute magnitude of the line voltage falls
to very low values” (specification, page 11, paragraph (b)).
The written description rejection of claim 30 is
sustained because appellant’s originally filed disclosure does
not provide any support for the now-claimed “conditioner
circuit” function of “being operative to cause the peak
absolute magnitude of the AC voltage [from the AC source] to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007