Appeal No. 2002-0558 Page 12
Application No. 09/289,076
Here, claim 5 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "[t]he apparatus
of claim 1, wherein the amplifier has a temperature-dependent input impedance
adapted to produce a voltage rise substantially canceling the voltage drop due to the
resistance for a range of temperatures." Similarly, claim 9 specifies in pertinent part the
following limitations: "an amplifier having input terminals connected across the
secondary winding, the amplifier constructed and arranged to produce a voltage rise
across the secondary winding substantially canceling a voltage drop across the
resistance of the secondary winding. . . ." Also similarly, claim 16 specifies in pertinent
part the following limitations: "applying a voltage across the secondary winding to
substantially cancel a voltage drop in the winding across the resistance. . . ." Giving
claims 5, 9, and 16 their broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require
producing a voltage rise across a winding that substantially cancels a voltage drop
across the resistance of the winding.
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. "In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956
(Fed. Cir. 1993)(citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007