Appeal No. 2005-1017 Page 4
Application No. 09/824,167
The examiner is of the view that Reineke discloses each and every element of
claim 1. The examiner states:
Note that this references shows the exact same figures 1-10 and also note
that the figures in the disclosure are noted as being those of the present
invention. For example see the description of fig. 1 on p. 11, in which it is
noted that the circuit is used “for charging and discharging a piezoelectric
element using the method according to the present invention”.
Consequently the structure claims are met by this reference in so far as
the claims are intended to refer to structures and operations shown in
figures 1-10 [final rejection at page 4].
Appellants argue that Reineke does not disclose that a current is regulated as a
function of time characteristic and an event characteristic to achieve an effective low
average current. In appellants’ view, Reineke does not disclose regulating current in
any way.
We agree with the appellants that even though Reineke’s figures are identical to
the figures in the present invention, there is no disclosure in Reineke of regulating the
current as a function of time characteristic and event characteristic. Therefore, we will
not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
We will likewise not sustain the rejection as it is directed to claims 2 to 6, 8 to 17
and 19 to 38 because each of the claims requires that the current is regulated as a
function of time characteristic and event characteristic.
We turn next to the examiner's rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Reineke.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007