Appeal 2007-1052
Application 10/329,906
mains voltage. As detailed in the findings of fact section above, we have
found that Lansberry teaches combining power from a plurality of sources to
inject an AC current into a load. (Findings of Fact 7 and 8.) We have also
found that Lansberry teaches that consumers are known to have supplied
excess power back into the utility grid. (Finding of Fact 9.) In our view, the
claimed mains voltage supply, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is
only a load that is being used4 to store and/or supply previously received
energy. Appellants appear to attempt to distinguish the claimed mains
voltage from the load disclosed in Lansberry on the basis of their difference
in types. Such a difference between the types of loads cannot serve as a
proper basis to patentably distinguish these claims from the prior art of
record. Further, as noted above, we find that Lansberry explicitly suggests
that excess power is injected back into the utility grid. In light of these facts,
we find that Lansberry’s disclosure in the aggregate teaches injecting an AC
current back in the mains voltage supply, as recited in independent claims 1,
8, 18, and 27. Therefore, it follows that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
the cited claims as being anticipated by Lansberry.
Appellants did not provide separate arguments with respect to the
rejection of dependent claims 5 through 7, 11, 13, 15 through 17, 19, 20, 24
through 26, 28 through 31, 33, and 34 as being anticipated by Lansberry.
Therefore, they fall together with their respective base claims. See In re
4 A different intended use of the same structure as in the prior art does not
prohibit a statutory anticipation rejection. It is well-settled that the recitation
of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old
product patentable. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429,
1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Ex Parte Wikdahl, 10 USPQ2d 15546, 1548
(Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989) and In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580, 152, USPQ
235, 238, CCPA 1967.)
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013