Ex Parte Deaton - Page 6

                Appeal 2006-3382                                                                               
                Application 10/461,709                                                                         

                      Goluszek demonstrates the claimed common ground of claims 2 and                          
                      33 as the negative pole of the power source 56, and transistor switches                  
                      60 and 70.  Details of the rejection of the other claims in this group                   
                      are presented in the Answer.                                                             
                   4. Appellant contends that the presence of capacitor 77 (e.g. in                            
                      Goluszek’s Figure 3) renders the teaching of Goluszek non-                               
                      anticipatory (Br. 9).  Appellant contends that capacitor 77 smoothes                     
                      the DC pulse stream of Goluszek so it no longer meets the claim                          
                      limitation, indeed Appellant contends Goluszek teaches away from                         
                      the claimed subject matter.  Considering Figures 3 and 5 of the                          
                      reference, we find that Goluszek states that smoothing of the pulses is                  
                      merely further processing of the DC pulses produced by the                               
                      interleaved Buck regulators.  This does not obviate the teaching, but                    
                      merely demonstrates that Goluszek uses the claimed power regulators                      
                      as only part of his full invention.  “Teaching away” requires a                          
                      negation of the teaching (see below); Goluszek merely goes on to                         
                      further process the DC pulses in accordance with his own invention.                      
                   5. Appellant contends, in the footnote of his Brief (page 10), that                         
                      Goluszek’s drafter erred in calling the output of his first stage DC                     
                      pulses or modulated DC pulses.  We find, rather, that the output of the                  
                      first stage was accurately portrayed, but that the input to his second                   
                      stage was preprocessed by the capacitor.  The teaching of Goluszek of                    
                      pulses is sound, and further processing of the signals to effect another                 
                      invention does not obviate it.                                                           


                                                      6                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013