Appeal No. 2001-1627
Application No. 09/289,420 Page 5
having the same polarity. It is argued (brief, page 8) that the
claim 1 limitation directed to the use of an inductor in contrast
to a magnetically coupled transformer is not met. The issue is
whether a transformer meets the claimed two-coil inductor. The
examiner's position (final rejection, page 4) is that appellants
primary and secondary windings form a transformer, and that since
the references each include a transformer, the claimed "two-coil
inductor" is met. The examiner (answer, page 4) relies upon a
dictionary1 definition of a transformer to support his position.
Appellant responds (reply brief, pages 3 and 4) by citing a
different dictionary2 definition of a transformer to support
appellants position that a transformer requires a ferromagnetic
core, whereas an inductor may or may not have a ferromagnetic
core. Appellant asserts (id.) that because an inductor do not
necessarily have a ferromagnetic core, that the transformers of
the prior art are not equivalent to the claimed two-coil
inductor.
We find that appellant's specification (page 4) discloses
inductor 160 to have a core. However, the specification is not
specific as to whether the core is a ferromagnetic core or an air
1 McGraw-Hill Electronics Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 1994.
2 The Illustrated Dictionary of Electronics, 4th Edition, 1988.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007