Appeal No. 2001-1627
Application No. 09/289,420 Page 18
isolated primary and secondary circuits, we would have to resort
to speculation, which we decline to do. See In re Warner, 379
F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967). Accordingly, we
find that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of anticipation of claim 1. The rejection of claim 1, and claims
2-18, dependent therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is therefore
reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 19-25. As
independent claim 19 also recites that "wherein said primary loop
and secondary loop circuits are not electrically isolated," the
rejection of claim 19, and claims 20-25, dependent therefrom,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) is reversed.
We turn next to independent claim 26. Claim 26 requires,
inter alia, that current is conducted through a primary and
secondary loop circuits at different times. The examiner has
provided no indication of how this limitation is considered to be
met by Yasumura. Appellant asserts (brief, page 13) that
appellant, having reviewed Yasumura, is unable to determine how
the document expressly or inherently meets this limitation.
We find that Yasumura discloses (col. 6, lines 45-47) that
when the self-excited switching operation starts, the switching
elements Q1 and Q2 go on alternatingly. In operation, the
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007