Appeal No. 1997-2289
Application 08/395,691
remaining substantially constant during a complete period of
the AC power line voltage.” We already noted above that
Anderson does not disclose that limitation. We find that the
additional reference, Stevens, does not cure the noted
deficiency of Anderson. Therefore, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of 3, 4, 6, 10, 14 and 15 over Anderson
and Stevens.
In conclusion, we reverse the Examiner’s final rejection
of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. We also
reverse the rejection claims 1, 2, 5, 7 to 9, 11 to 13, and 16
to 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Further, we reverse the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 2 and 4 to 7, and
claims 3, 4, 6, 10, 14 and 15.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007