Appeal No. 2001-1627
Application No. 09/289,420 Page 15
claim 1. Appellant asserts (brief, page 11) that Yasumura does
not meet the recited claim limitation directed to the use of an
inductor in contrast to a transformer. We make reference to our
construction of claim 1, supra. We find that the primary coil N1
and secondary coil Ni of MCT meet the claimed "two-coil inductor"
based upon our determinations, supra, with respect to the
construction of claim 1. Appellants argue (id.) that Yasumura
does not meet the claimed "input voltage ratio to output voltage
ratio capable of being equal to, greater than, or less than one."
The voltage ratios of Yasumura inherently meet this limitation
because whatever the ratio is, it is inherently within the set of
numbers defined by greater than one, equal to one or less than
one.
Appellant further argues that Yasumura does not meet the
claimed "alternative coils of a two-coil inductor are employed in
a primary and secondary circuit loop." We find that this
limitation is met by Yasumura based our findings, supra, with
respect to claim construction of claim 1.
It is further argued that the limitation regarding the
"input and output voltages having the same polarity" is not met.
We find from the disclosure of Yasumura that secondary winding Ni
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007