Ex Parte DINH - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2000-0453                                                                                        
              Application No. 09/083,901                                                                                  


                                                    BACKGROUND                                                            
                     Appellant's invention relates to a DC-to-DC converter providing high current and                     
              low voltage.  An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of                            
              exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below.                                                               
              1.     A DC-to-DC converter comprising:                                                                     
                     a synchronous rectifier converter, said synchronous rectifier converter                              
              comprising a buck converter;                                                                                
                     the transformer of said synchronous rectifier converter employing less than five                     
              windings on the secondary of the transformer.                                                               
                     The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                      
              appealed claims are:                                                                                        
              Butcher et al. (Butcher)            4,399,499                           Aug. 16, 1983                       
              Gegner                              5,477,131                           Dec. 19, 1995                       
                     Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being clearly anticipated by                      
              Gegner.  Claims 8-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                        
              Gegner in view of Butcher.                                                                                  
                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                        
              appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's                         
              answer (Paper No. 14, mailed Oct. 26, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of                      
              the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 13, filed Oct. 12, 1999)  for appellant's               
              arguments thereagainst.                                                                                     


                                                           2                                                              





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007