Appeal No. 1994-3610
Application 07/805,474
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, Tanitsu’s circuit description fails to make reference to any preselection of the
amount of the transistor leakage inductance in order to affect the operational characteristics of the
circuit, particularly not one that would contribute to a higher voltage being applied to the capacitive gate
control input. Additionally, we concur with the Appellant’s functional characterization of Tanitsu’s
circuit in that Tanitsu also appears to use a one step switching function to effect the voltage transfer.
(See Appeal Brief, pages 14-15, and Reply Brief, pages 3-4.) Thus, due to the fact that significant
functional differences do exist between Appellant’s independent claim 41 and Tanitsu, the rejection is
reversed.
As stated above, the first grouping of claims includes the other two independent claims, i.e.,
claims 1 and 31, as well as independent claim 41. We note that independent claims 1 and 31 also
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007