Appeal No. 1996-3126
Application No. 08/300,586
Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1125, 227 USPQ
577, 588 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(in banc).
Therefore, the upper curve in Figure 4A anticipates claims 52
and 53, notwithstanding the disclosure to avoid such a
condition. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection over
Sokal of claims 52, 53, and 21 (which is grouped with 53.)
Krauss shows in Figure 14-8 a voltage curve similar to
that of Sokal and labels it "Suboptimum." The curve shows a
substantial voltage at the turn-on point of the switch. Like
Sokal, Krauss describes the optimum condition as having a zero
voltage when the switch is turned on. Accordingly, appellants
argue that Krauss teaches away from the claimed invention.
Nonetheless, like Sokal, Krauss discloses the claimed
invention in the "Suboptimum" curve and therefore anticipates
claims 52 and 53. Consequently, we will sustain the rejection
over Krauss of claims 52, 53, and 21 (which is grouped with
53).
We note that appellants include additional arguments
worth addressing as to claims 52, 53, and their dependents.
Appellants state (Brief, page 5) that "Picking and Choosing Is
Not Allowed in a 102 Rejection." We find no "picking and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007