Appeal No. 2002-0558 Page 11
Application No. 09/289,076
for "magnetic properties suitable for transformer action. . . ." (Examiner's Answer
at 10.) Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 6-8.
Claims 5 and 9-19
Admitting that "Meyer did not expressly disclose an amplifier producing negative
input resistance across the secondary winding to substantially cancel the voltage drop
in the secondary winding resistance," (Examiner's Answer at 4), the examiner alleges,
"Kiko discloses a compensated transformer circuit 16 with an amplifier 18 producing
negative input resistance across the secondary winding (see column 4 lines 46-63, and
Fig. 3)." (Id. at 10.) The appellant argues, "[t]hat is not a disclosure of producing a
negative input impedance across the secondary winding to substantially cancel the
voltage drop in the winding due to the secondary winding resistance." (Appeal Br.
at 10.)
“‘[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every application is subjected,
is to try to make sure that what each claim defines is patentable. [T]he name of the
game is the claim. . . .’” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich, The Extent of the Protection and
Interpretation of Claims --American Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright
L. 497, 499, 501 (1990)).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007