Appeal No. 2001-1627
Application No. 09/289,420 Page 4
examiner's rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we affirm-in-
part.
We begin with the rejection of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being clearly anticipated by Cuk. The examiner's
rejection, in its entirety (final rejection, page 3) is that "Cuk
et al. disclose DC to DC converter having reduced ripple without
need for adjustment in figures 1-5." To anticipate a claim, a
prior art reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed
invention, either explicitly or inherently. In re Schreiber, 128
F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As
stated in In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326
(CCPA 1981) (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214, 40
USPQ 665, 667 (CCPA 1939)) (internal citations omitted):
Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities
or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may
result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.
Appellant asserts (brief, page 14) that claims 1-25 are not
met by Cuk for the reasons set forth in the brief with respect to
Yasumura, and adds that Cuk does not expressly or inherently meet
limitations directed to non-electrically isolated primary and
secondary circuit loops; nor to an input and output voltage
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007