Appeal No. 1997-1389
Application 08/642,811
in the paragraph bridging columns 6 and 7 of Fukunaga. As
well pointed out by the examiner in the noted portions in the
answer, Figures 12 and 13 make it clear that a current
transformer and a current detecting resistor may be utilized
in the alternative “to derive a voltage . . . in response to a
main current flowing in the switching device 2U (2L) through
an amplifier 25 as a monitor voltage V .” (column 7, lines
MON
15 through 20.)
In view of the foregoing assessment of this reference, it
is clear that there is detection of an output voltage of a
half
H-bridge circuit as set forth at the end of claim 1 on appeal
to enable subsequent drive sequences through the other logic
feedback circuitry of Figures 5 and 6. We find unpersuasive,
as does the examiner, appellant's discussion of this reference
at pages 6 and 7 of the brief. As noted by the examiner,
appellant's discussion with respect to Figure 10 relates
primarily to features not pertinent to the claimed invention
recited in claim 1 on appeal. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Fukunaga.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007