Appeal No. 2000-0453
Application No. 09/083,901
With respect to independent claim 10, the examiner has not shown that
individual references or the combination of references teaches or fairly suggests the
claimed invention. The examiner relies on routine level of skill in the art to determine
the optimum values for operation. We disagree with the examiner characterization of
the invention and lack of any evidence or convincing line of reasoning to support the
examiner’s position. Therefore, we agree with appellant that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed invention, and we will not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 10 and its dependent claims 11-14.
With respect to independent claim 15, as discussed above the examiner has not
shown that the prior art to Gegner and Butcher teach or suggest the use of less than
five windings on the secondary and similarly, the examiner has not shown that they
teach or suggest the use of a single winding on the secondary. Therefore, we will not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 15 and its dependent claims 16-18.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007