Appeal No. 1994-3610
Application 07/805,474
selective quantized forward energy transfer and that Wazaki’s switching functions differ significantly.
(See Appeal Brief, pages 10-14.) In his rebuttal to these assertions, the Examiner merely states that
“since the circuit of Wazaki is the same as that of the claimed invention, the functions should be the
same. (emphasis added)” (See Examiner’s Answer, page 8.)
In comparing the Appellant’s invention illustrated in his Figure 5 with Wazaki’s figures, there
does exist substantial similarities in the circuitry, however, a closer inspection of the descriptions of how
these circuits operate reveals that significant functional differences do exist. Claim 41 clearly recites that
the transformer has a “preselected amount of leakage inductance” and that the power switching device
is turned on by “closing and opening a first switching device to connect a voltage source to a primary
winding of the transformer to cause selective quantized forward energy transfer from the voltage source
to charge the capacitive gate control input to a voltage greater than a reflected source voltage
established by the voltage source and the transformer.” From reviewing Appellant’s specification, it is
clear that these passages refer to key functional features of his invention. The preselection of a
specified leakage inductance together with the two-step switching function results in a predetermined
quantized forward energy transfer at a voltage significantly greater (often twice as high) than the
reflected source voltage. (See specification pages 14-18.)
In contrast, Wazaki’s circuit does not provide a similar voltage amplification to the capacitive
gate control input. In fact, Wazaki minimizes the impact of the selection of the transformer’s leakage
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007