Appeal No. 2001-1627
Application No. 09/289,420 Page 7
voltage is equal to, less than or greater than one. We find the
claim language to be a broad recitation of structure, and that to
meet the limitation, Cuk would have to be capable of meeting the
claimed ratio. We find that the language of the claim "equal to,
greater than, or less than one" is broad enough to read on the
entire set of real numbers, and that whatever the voltage ratio
is, it will inherently be in the ratio of "equal to, greater
than, or less than one." Accordingly, we consider this
limitation to be met by Cuk.
Appellant further argues (brief, page 11) that the
limitation regarding the recited alternative coils of a two-coil
inductor being employed in a primary and secondary loop, is not
met by the prior art. We note that the claim language does not
require that both coils are in each loop, but rather that one of
the alternative coils in one of the primary and secondary loops
and that the other coil is in the other of the primary and
secondary loops, as is shown for example in figure 3a of Cuk. In
any event, to the extent that claim 1 could be construed as
requiring that both coils are in each loop, we find this to be me
by virtue of switch S, which along with capacitor C1 connects
both loops or circuits. It is further argued (brief, pages 14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007