Appeal No. 2000-0453
Application No. 09/083,901
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 USC § 102
Appellant argues that Gegner does not teach all of the elements and limitations
and that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation. Appellant
argues that Gegner does not teach the use of a transformer of a synchronous rectifier
employing less than five windings on the secondary of the transformer. (See brief at
page 8.) We agree with appellant that Gegner is silent as to the number of turns on the
secondary. The examiner maintains that Gegner discloses the number of turns on “a
secondary winding Nx” in Figure 5 (Gegner at column 6) and that the number of turns
would be merely a design choice. (See answer at page 5.) We disagree with the
examiner. Additionally, the examiner maintains that appellant’s use of “windings” is
directed to the windings of the coils in the transformer and that a transformer would
have at least two windings (primary and secondary) and that these two are less than
five. We find the examiner interpretation of the term “winding” to be too narrow and not
reasonable in light of appellant’s disclosed invention. The examiner maintains that
Gegner teaches a single winding Nx at column 9, line 40, but clearly the examiner has
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007