Appeal No. 1996-3126
Application No. 08/300,586
voltage is indeterminable. Accordingly, we must reverse the
rejection of claims 5 and 25.
For claim 54, the examiner's sole explanation (Final
Rejection, page 4, and Answer, page 6) is that the voltage
waveforms of both Sokal and Krauss show that the maximum
switch voltage can be reduced during the response time period.
The examiner concludes that the means for reducing the voltage
is inherent to the circuit. The examiner, however, has
ignored the limitation that such reduction must occur "while
maintaining said level of power to said load." Further, the
examiner has failed to identify in the references appellants'
disclosed means for accomplishing such reduction of the
maximum switch voltage, in accordance with In re Donaldson
Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994). "It is
axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be
found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also Lindemann Maschinenfabrik v.
American Hoist and Derrick, 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Since neither Sokal nor Krauss
discloses the claimed means, we cannot sustain the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007