Appeal No. 2000-2255
Application No. 09/123,522
Accordingly, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of appealed
independent claims 1, 6, and 11, as well as dependent claim 7, is
sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of dependent claims 2-5 and 8-10 based on the
combination of Newton and Zaitsu, we note that, while we found
Appellant’s arguments to be unpersuasive with regard to the
obviousness rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, and 11 discussed supra,
we reach the opposite conclusion with respect to claims 2-5 and
8-10. Claims 2-5 and 8-10 provide a detailed recitation of the
circuit structure of the rectification-smoothing circuit as well
as of the circuit connections of the piezoelectric transformer to
the rectification-smoothing circuit. In addressing the claimed
limitations, the Examiner has asserted (Answer, page 5):
it is well known in the art to utilize any number
of various different configurations of the
rectification and smoothing circuit to achieve
the rectification and smoothing [circuit] process
at the output of the circuit and any of these
various different configurations of the
rectification and smoothing circuit are well
within the abilities of one of ordinary skill
in the art.
We find no support on the record for these conclusions of
the Examiner. Further, even assuming, arguendo, that a variety
of rectification-smoothing circuits may be known in the art,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007