Appeal No. 1999-1937
Application No. 08/470,122
each reference as a whole to determine whether any combination of these teachings
would result in the instant claimed subject matter. We conclude that no combination
of DeDoncker and Dishner would result in the instant claimed subject matter.
Figure 1 of Dishner shows a conversion from a first AC voltage to a second DC
voltage by converting the first AC voltage to a DC voltage which in turn is converted
to a second DC voltage. The DC/DC converter 52 is bidirectional in nature.
Appellants have admitted that Dishner does, indeed, convert a first AC voltage to a
second AC voltage by converting the first AC voltage to a DC voltage which in turn is
converted to a second DC voltage which is then converted to a second AC voltage
[supplemental brief-page 4]. If the DC/DC conversion apparatus, element 52, had
been a generally identified converter, it would appear that artisans would have
looked to the prior art to determine what could be used for such a DC/DC converter.
DeDoncker discloses a DC/DC converter. The examiner identifies the DC/DC
converter of DeDoncker as “an insulation type bidirectional DC voltage converter,” as
claimed and appellants do not deny this. Accordingly, it would have appeared
reasonable to us that the skilled artisan would have been led to use a typical DC/DC
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007