Appeal No. 1999-1992
Application No. 08/848,842
state while a control voltage of the other device is in a high
state. The examiner likewise does not specifically point out
this feature in Farwell. Therefore, we cannot sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 8 by Farwell.
With respect to claim 13, we find that this claim
contains the recitation of modifying the set point of the
output voltage and adjusting the set point based, at least in
part, on the magnitude of the sample voltage signal. As we
pointed out earlier in our discussion of claim 1, and as
argued by appellants on page 14 of the brief, we do not find
Farwell to disclose or suggest the modifying of the set point
of the output voltage of the converter. Therefore, we do not
sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 13 by Farwell.
With respect to claim 17, it too contains the recited
limitation of “clamping the control voltage signal of each of
the high-side and low-side devices in a low state while the
other switching device is in a high state.” Therefore, we do
not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 17 for the
rationale for claim 8.
Furthermore, in our analysis for obviousness, we are
guided by the general proposition that in an appeal involving
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007