Appeal No. 1997-3924
Application No. 08/571,634
we find no discussion of changing the output voltage frequency
in Perper and Elms. Accordingly, the examiner has failed to
meet his burden in establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 17, 19, and 26, and their dependents, claims 18 and 20
through 25.
Appellant argues (Brief, pages 7 and 8), regarding claims
27 and 31 that the references fail to suggest changing the
frequency of the AC output voltage to limit its magnitude.
Similar to above, we find no discussion in either reference of
changing the frequency, and the examiner has failed to meet
his burden to present evidence showing that the prior art does
function as claimed. Accordingly, we must reverse the
rejection of claims 27, 31, and claim 32 (which depends from
claim 31).
As to claims 28 and 29, appellant contends (Brief, page
8) that nothing in Perper or Elms suggests that the frequency
of the AC output voltage changes in response to changes in the
magnitude of the AC output voltage. Again the examiner has
failed to provide any evidence or to point to any portion in
the references which would convince us that the circuit of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007