Appeal No. 2002-0635
Application No. 09/534,583
appeal. The examiner appears to rely only upon the Fig. 3A
embodiment of Hosozawa. The examiner’s rationale at this portion
of the answer does not address the functional limitations of
“said middle portions having a configuration to substantially
prevent inflection points along a saturation curve of said
choke.” The corresponding slightly more specific version of this
feature is set forth at the end of claim 22 on appeal as “said
air gap having a configuration which results in said inductance
of said choke gradually changing with an output current of the
welder without saturation in said air gap thereby eliminating
inflection points during operation of said welder.”
It is thus apparent that the examiner’s rejection cannot be
sustained on its face because there is not evidence before us
that the structure identified by the examiner in Hosozawa
discloses structure which is capable of performing the recited
functional limitations just noted. A study of this reference
leads us to agree with appellants’ position in the brief and
reply brief that Hosozawa does not teach or disclose the
electrical/magnetic properties of the chokes or ferrite cores
disclosed among his various embodiments.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007