Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
(Fed. Cir. 1994) that Buchele’s coupling structure does not include
a transformer, that the Figure 2 embodiment of Appellants’
disclosed coupling arrangement also does not include a transformer.
It is also our view that the Examiner is correct in the assertion
(Answer, page 14) that Appellants’ Donaldson argument with respect
to the driving circuit features of claim 36 is unpersuasive because
of the presence of significant structure in the claim which
modifies the “means for driving” claim language.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claimed
limitations are present in the disclosure of Buchele, the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of appealed claims 36 and
39 is sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of claims 37, 38, and 40, we note that, while we
found Appellants’ arguments to be unpersuasive with respect to the
rejection of claims 36 and 39, we reach the opposite conclusion
with respect to claims 37, 38, and 40. We agree with Appellants
that the language of claim 37, upon which claim 38 depends, recites
a bridge circuit which “comprises two series-connected P- and N-
channel field effect transistors connected in parallel,” and is
therefore in direct contrast to the circuit structure of Buchele
which discloses only n-channel devices. Since there is no response
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007