Appeal No. 2000-0706
Application No. 08/675,665
"second circuit" in the specification. Since appellants' sole argument merely identifies
the same language in another line of the claims, we are not persuaded that the
examiner erred in finding that the claimed phrase lacked proper antecedence, and we
will sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellants argue that Stevens does not teach the voltage source as claimed.
(See brief at page 7.) We agree with appellants, but note that the examiner relies upon
the teachings of Tap to teach and suggest the power circuitry. Therefore, this argument
is not persuasive. Appellants argue that there are many differences between Tap and
the subject circuit, but does not identify them. Therefore, this argument is not
persuasive. Appellants admit that Tap teaches the addition of voltages to supply a
load. (See brief at page 8.)
The examiner maintains that "the great advantage of adding the first DC source
to the second involves the protection of such a circuit during a no load condition" and
that "[w]ith lamp circuits no load conditions are common." (See answer at page 5.)
The examiner continues that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to utilize a DC source that adds the battery or first DC
source voltage to the generated second DC voltage "so as to protect against a no-load
condition." The examiner relies upon the teachings of Tap as found in Fig. 3 and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007