Appeal No. 1997-3995
Application No. 07/952,303
art which teach or suggest these claim limitations. The
examiner again offers no response. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 17-20 for the same reasons
discussed above.
With respect to independent claim 28, the examiner
points out certain teachings of Burke and concludes that “it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the
time the invention was made to have a center [tap] on the
input side to filter out any residual frequencies as noted by
the use of filtering capacitors (32, 33) of Burke” [final
rejection, page 5].
Appellant argues that Burke does not teach the
specific features of the DC voltage source. The examiner does
not respond to this argument. Appellant addresses the
examiner’s reasoning behind his conclusion of obviousness and
disputes that a center tap would filter out residual
frequencies as claimed. The examiner does not respond to this
argument. Appellant argues that the claimed arrangement is
operative to provide an AC voltage between the inverter output
terminal and the center tap and that the examiner has failed
to address this feature. The examiner does not respond to
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007