Appeal No. 2001-1627
Application No. 09/289,420 Page 12
and the anode of diode D1 in snubber circuit 20, which absorbs
the peak value of the current surge (col. 2-9, 22-25, and 31-38).
We additionally find that the capacitors provide surge
protection, as advanced by appellant, and do not provide non-
isolation of the circuit loops. We agree with appellant that Bang
does not disclose non-isolation of the circuit loops, and
therefore find that Bang does not anticipate 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 also requires that the primary and secondary loop
circuit are not electrically isolated, the rejection of claim 19,
and claims 20-25, dependent therefrom under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of independent claim 26. We
observe that claim 26 is the broadest of the three independent
claims. We make reference to our findings, supra, with respect
to the teaching of Bang. In addition, we find from figure 3 of
Bang that the polarity of the output voltage B+1 and B+2 is the
same relative polarity as the output voltage of voltage doubler
10. Although appellant asserts (reply brief, page 6) that all of
the cited patents have output voltages that are of opposite
relative polarity to their input voltages, appellant does not
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007