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