Appeal No. 2000-2255
Application No. 09/123,522
appealed claims 1, 6, 7, and 11 and each of the Newton and Zaitsu
references. It is apparent, however, from the Examiner’s line of
reasoning in the Answer, that the basis for the obviousness
rejection is the combination of Newton and Zaitsu. One cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where
the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981); In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
In other words, while Appellant contends that Newton lacks a
teaching of using a piezoelectric transformer to convert an input
waveform having any duty cycle into a sinusoidal waveform with a
50% duty cycle, this teaching is clearly provided by Zaitsu.1
Further, although Appellant argues that Zaitsu utilizes a bridge
rectifier circuit at the transformer output rather than a current
doubler which achieves zero-ripple current, this feature is
clearly taught by Newton.
We also find, contrary to Appellant’s contention, that the
skilled artisan would find ample suggestion in Zaitsu for
1 We do not necessarily agree with Appellant’s characterization of
Newton since, although Newton discusses achieving zero-ripple current at a
predetermined input waveform duty cycle, this duty cycle is also disclosed as
being adjustable (Newton, column 3. Line 63).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007