Appeal No. 1998-2460
Application No. 08/654,763
With regard to independent claim 3, appellant argues
[page 15-principal brief] that this claim distinguishes over
the applied references by its recitation of the means for
controlling the duty cycle in accordance with the sensed
current having an input coupled to an output of the current
sensing means and to an output of said means for incrementally
increasing. Since the examiner has not addressed the
limitation of the means for “incrementally increasing a duty
cycle...”, and we are unaware of any reason to modify the
applied references to provide for this claimed recitation, we
will not sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With regard to independent claim 6, appellant argues
[principal brief-page 15] that the distinguishing feature is
the recitation of a combination of a capacitance and an
oscillator for providing a signal for periodically applying a
charge to the capacitance. Since this is the means by which a
corresponding increase in the duty cycle is produced and we
have held that the recitation of the “incrementally
increasing” limitation distinguished over the applied
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007