Appeal No. 2000-2255
Application No. 09/123,522
arguments which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie
case of obviousness. Only those arguments actually made by
Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments which
Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Brief have
not been considered (see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)).
Appellant’s arguments in response assert the failure to set
forth a prima facie case of obviousness since proper motivation
for the proposed combination of Newton and Zaitsu has not been
established. Initially, Appellant contends (Brief, pages 8 and
9) that no motivation exists within Newton to use a piezoelectric
transformer such as taught by Zaistsu to achieve zero-ripple
current from an input waveform having any duty cycle since Newton
is limited to achieving zero-ripple current only with
predetermined duty cycle input waveforms. Similarly, Appellant
argues (id., at 8 and 9) that Zaitsu provides no suggestion of
any combination with Newton since Zaitsu utilizes a bridge
rectifier circuit, rather than a current doubler circuit as
disclosed by Newton, at the transformer output.
After careful review of the Newton and Zaitsu references in
light of the arguments of record, we find Appellant’s assertions
to be unpersuasive. In our view, Appellant’s arguments focus on
the individual differences between the limitations of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007