Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
antecedent reference for the corresponding elements in the body of
the claims, and limiting the claimed subject matter accordingly.
For the above reasons, since all of the claim limitations are
not present in the disclosure of Waraksa, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claims 32
and 72.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 36-40
based on Buchele.
In making this rejection, the Examiner makes reference
(Answer, page 5) to the driving circuitry including a bridge
circuit of 4 FETs illustrated in Figure 2 of Buchele. With respect
to claims 36 and 39, argued together by Appellants, we find no
convincing arguments from Appellants that convince us of any error
in the Examiner’s position which asserts that the Figure 8
structure of Buchele discloses a capacitor coupled to a coil with
driving circuitry including a bridge circuit of four FETs as
claimed. To whatever extent Appellants’ argument (id., at 49) that
Buchele does not have a “high power PWM signal” at opposing
transistor junctions may be correct, there is no such requirement
appearing in claims 36 and 39.
We also agree with the Examiner, with respect to Appellants’
argument based on In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007