Appeal No. 2001-1627
Application No. 09/289,420 Page 13
point to any portion of the disclosure of Bang to support
appellant's position. Thus, from all of the above, we find
nothing in the disclosure of Bang that would convince us of any
error in the examiner's position that the output and input
voltages of Bang have the same polarity. With respect to the
limitation of "an inductor included in both circuit loops,"
appellant asserts (brief, pages 18 and 19) that in appellant's
invention, coupled coils 162 and 164 are in both circuit loops
due to the presence of transistor 11. However, as we found,
supra, claim 26 is broad enough to read on one coil of the
inductor being in one loop and the other coil of the inductor
being in the other loop. We find this interpretation to be
consistent with the language of claim 27, dependent from claim
26, which recites that "wherein said conductor comprises a two-
coil conductor, one of said coils being in said primary loop and
one of said coils being in said secondary loop." Because claim
26 is broad enough to read on one of the coils being in each of
the loops, we find that this limitation is met by Bang.
In addition, due to the inherent nature of the transformer
T1 of Bang, we find that an input voltage is across the inductor
while the transformer charges and that an output voltage is
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007