Appeal 2007-1052
Application 10/329,906
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See
also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
B. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
Now, we turn to the rejection of claims 2 through 4, 9, 10, 12, 14, and
21 through 23 as being unpatentable over Lansberry alone within 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. We note that Appellants merely reiterate the same arguments
addressed above in the discussion of independent claims 1, 8, 18, and 27.
As discussed above, we find that Lansberry teaches the claimed limitation of
injecting an AC current into the mains voltage. As stated earlier, we find
that the difference in nature between Appellants’ load (Mains voltage) and
Lansberry’s (a house) cannot be considered as a proper basis of patentability
for the present claims. Thus, we generally agree with the Examiner’s
position that Lansberry’s teachings are reinforced by knowledge of the prior
art. We find that the Examiner’s position is substantiated by Appellants’
own admission revealing that it is common practice in the art to inject excess
power back into the mains voltage. (Finding of fact 1, footnote 3.) In light
of these findings, it is our view that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Lansberry with
knowledge of the prior art to yield the invention as claimed. Therefore, it
follows that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2 through 4, 9, 10,
12, 14, and 21 through 23 as being unpatentable over of Lansberry.
Now, we turn to the rejection of claims 1 through 31, 33, and 34 as
being unpatentable over Fang taken in combination with Emmerich. We
have found that Fang teaches feeding back an output voltage to a reference
generator. (Finding of fact 10.) We have also found that Emmerich teaches
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013