Appeal No. 98-0580
Application No. 07/728,042
be clamped such as not to exceed to any substantive degree the
maximum absolute magnitude of the sum capacitor voltage.”
Stated differently, appellant’s originally filed specification
and drawing fail to disclose how the bridge rectifier BR, the
inverter IC, and the additional circuit elements EC1, EC2, R1
and R2 function to clamp the AC voltage. Appellant’s argument
(Reply Brief, page 3) that the “instantaneous magnitude of the
AC voltage applied to the AC input of rectifier BR can not
possibly exceed . . . the sum of the voltages across
capacitors EC1/EC2" is contradictory to the disclosure and
other claims (e.g., claims 19 and 20).
The obviousness rejection of claims 19 through 31 is
reversed because even if we agreed with every word of the
examiner’s reasoning (Answer, pages 7 through 9) for combining
the applied references, we must agree with appellant’s
arguments (Reply Brief, pages 7 through 10) that the combined
teachings are not relevant to the claimed invention, and the
combined teachings fail to address the claimed feature of
capacitors charged via the inverter during certain times based
upon the voltage level of the source voltage. Neither of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007