Appeal No. 2001-1627
Application No. 09/289,420 Page 9
the same polarity" is not met by Cuk as shown by the + and -
signs in the figures. The examiner asserts (answer, page 5) that
"all three reference have a positive voltage input and a positive
voltage output anticipating appellants claims."
From our review of Cuk, we agree with appellant that Cuk
discloses opposite polarity at the output of the converter than
the voltage at the input to the converter; see e.g., figure 7.
Accordingly, from all of the above, we find that Cuk does not
meet all of the limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-18 dependent therefrom, under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed. As independent claim 19
similarly requires that the input and output voltages have the
same polarity, the rejection of claim 19 and claims 20-25,
dependent therefrom, is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 1-31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by Bang. The examiner's
rejection, in its entirety (final rejection, page 3) is that
"Bang discloses a surge protection circuit for a switching mode
power supply in figure 3." Appellant asserts (brief, pages 17
and 18) that Bang does not meet the claim limitations directed to
electrically isolated circuit loops; the use of an inductor in
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007