Appeal No. 1999-1937
Application No. 08/470,122
voltage converter” [answer-page 4]. The examiner then concludes that it would have been
obvious “to provide the insulation type bidirectional DC/DC voltage converter of
DeDoncker with the bidirectional DC/DC voltage converter in a conversion system
involving several conversions involving AC/DC to DC/DC to DC/AC of Dishner in order to
provide a bidirectional DC/DC converter which outputs a DC output voltage with minimum
ripple current and a bidirectional DC/DC converter which acts only as a boost converter
when the power flow is from one permanent magnet machine to the other machine
and which acts as a buck converter when the power flow is from the other machine
to the one machine” [answer-pages 4-5].
For their part, appellants contend that the combination suggested by the
examiner would not result in the claimed subject matter. Appellants complain that
the examiner is inconsistent in the application of the references, using DeDoncker as
the “primary reference” while later referring to Dishner as the “base reference” and
DeDoncker as the “teaching reference.” Appellants further argue that the invention is
not directed to an insulation type bidirectional DC/DC voltage converter but rather to
the conversion of a first AC voltage to a second AC voltage, using a bidirectional
DC/DC voltage converter as a component.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007