Appeal 2007-1052
Application 10/329,906
(Reply Br. 2.) In response, the Examiner contends that Lansberry teaches
the cited limitation by continuously injecting an AC current into a load.
(Answer 10.)
Next, Appellants contend that claims 2 through 4, 9, 10, 12, 14, 21,
22, and 23 are not unpatentable over Lansberry because the cited reference
does not teach injecting an AC current in the mains voltage. (Br. 13.) In
response, the Examiner reiterates that Lansberry teaches the cited limitation
by continuously injecting an AC current into a load. (Answer 15.)
Consequently, the Examiner contends that Lansberry in view of knowledge
of the prior art renders the cited claims unpatentable. (Id.)
Further, Appellants contend that Fang, taken in combination with
Emmerich, does not render claims 1 through 7, 27, 28, 32, and 34
unpatentable. Particularly, Appellants contend that neither Fang nor
Emmerich teaches, inter alia, injecting the AC current into the mains voltage
supply, as claimed. (Br. 12, 13, Reply Br. 3.) Additionally, Appellants
contend that for these same reasons the combination of Fang and Emmerich
with Lansberry or Ashley, does not render claims 8 through 26, 29 through
31 unpatentable. (Br. 14-15.) The Examiner, in contrast, contends that both
Lansberry and Ashley further complement the Fang-Emmerich combination
to yield the invention as set forth in cited claims. (Answer 15 through 17.)
Therefore, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the cited references to
render the cited claims unpatentable. (Id.)
We affirm.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013