Appeal No. 1997-3924
Application No. 08/571,634
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims
17 through 33.
Independent claims 17, 19, and 26 each require a "tuned
L-C circuit." Appellant argues (Brief, page 4) that neither
Perper nor Elms discloses such a circuit. The examiner
(Answer, pages 4-5) points to transformer inductance 22 and
capacitors C3-C5, asserting that they provide for tuning.
However, nowhere does the examiner provide any evidence that
would indicate that the combination of elements 22 and C3-C5
actually forms a tuned L-C circuit as recited in the claims.
Further, with respect to claims 17 and 19, capacitors C3-C5
fail to meet the limitation that the capacitor must be located
across the AC output terminals. In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103, the examiner has the initial burden to establish
a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The examiner has failed to meet
this burden.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007