Appeal No. 2000-0706
Application No. 08/675,665
correlates the claimed elements with the disclosure of Tap. (See answer at page 9.)
We agree with the examiner that Tap teaches the elements of the claimed first circuit.
The examiner concludes that it is the adding of the first DC voltage to the second DC
voltage that results in the protection of the components during no-load conditions "as
noted in the Final rejection dated 2-17-1999." We have reviewed the final and find no
further discussion beyond the same conclusion stated by the examiner at page 3 of the
Final rejection.
Appellants argue that Tap does not support the examiner's position concerning
the no-load condition. Appellants argue that Tap at col. 1, lines 39-44 explains that the
output direct current source contains the direct voltage supply source to promote the
starting of the oscillator. (See brief at page 8.) We find no response to appellants'
argument in the examiner's answer, but the examiner again maintains without reference
to appellants' arguments that the no-load condition would provide ample motivation to
use a DC source that provides protection. (See answer at pages 9-10.) We disagree
with the examiner's repeated unsupported conclusion concerning the no-load condition
without specifically addressing appellants' rebuttal analysis of the teachings of Tap.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007