Appeal No. 2000-0706
Application No. 08/675,665
Appellants argue that the invention does not a use self-oscillating switching
element. (See brief at page 9.) We find no support for this argument/distinction in the
language of claim 1. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. Appellants argue that
Tap fails to teach or suggest any other reason or motivation for making the output direct
current circuit contain the direct voltage supply source. (See brief at page 9.)
Appellants argue that there is no incentive to add this feature where the starting of self-
starting oscillation does not need to be helped. Appellants support this contention by
identifying col. 2, ll 59-62 of Tap concerning the control of transistors. (See brief at
page 9.) We agree that col. 2 supports appellants' position that oscillation control and
no-load condition are related. We again find no response to appellants' argument from
the examiner. Therefore, the examiner has neither provided any evidence to rebut
appellants' contention nor to support the examiner position.
Therefore, we find that the examiner has not provided a convincing line of reasoning as
a basis for a motivation to combine the teachings of Stevens and Tap.
Appellants argue that Tap does not recognize the connection between the DC
source contributing to the output and the protection under a no-load condition. (See
brief at page 10.) We agree with appellants. Appellants specifically request that the
examiner explain "how the adding of the DC source voltage to the output of the DC to
DC converter protects the circuit during a no load condition." (See brief at page 10.)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007