Appeal No. 2000-2255
Application No. 09/123,522
there is no indication from the Examiner as to how such circuits
would be connected to a piezoelectric transformer arrangement in
order to achieve the specific transformer and rectification-
smoothing circuit combination set forth in claims 2-5 and 8-10.
The Examiner must not only make requisite findings, based on the
evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which
the findings are deemed to support the conclusion of obviousness.
See In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed.
Cir. 2002). Accordingly, since all of the claim limitations are
not taught or suggested by the applied Newton and Zaitsu
references, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case
of obviousness, and the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of dependent
claims 2-5 and 8-10 is not sustained.
In summary, with respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of the appealed claims, we have sustained the rejection
of claims 1, 6, 7, and 11, but have not sustained the rejection
of claims 2-5 and 8-10. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1-11 is affirmed-in-part.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007