Appeal No. 1994-3610
Application 07/805,474
inductance on his circuit. (See Wazaki, page 10.) Additionally, we concur with the Appellant’s
functional characterization of Wazaki’s circuit in that the voltage supplied to the capacitive gate control
input only appears to rise to the reflected source voltage level and that Wazaki only uses a one step
switching function to effect the voltage transfer. (See Appeal Brief, pages 10-14, and Reply Brief,
pages 1-4.) Thus, due to the fact that significant functional differences do exist between Appellant’s
independent claim 41 and Wazaki, the rejection is reversed.
With respect to the second anticipation rejection, the Examiner describes how Tanitsu is being
applied on pages 2-5 of the Examiner’s Answer. In response to this application of prior art, the
Appellant argues that Tanitsu also does not achieve Appellant’s key benefit of voltage amplification due
to the selective quantized forward energy transfer and that Tanitsu’s switching functions differ
significantly. (See Appeal Brief, pages 14-15.) In his rebuttal to these assertions, the Examiner
discounts the importance of the predetermined amount of leakage inductance in the transformer, and
once again states that “since the circuit of Tanitsu is the same as that of the claimed invention, the
functions should be the same. (emphasis added)” (See Examiner’s Answer, pages 9-10.)
In comparing the Appellant’s invention illustrated in Figure 5 with Tanitsu’s figures, again 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 once again exist. In reiterating what
was previously stated, Claim 41 clearly recites that the transformer has a “preselected amount of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007