Appeal 2006-3382
Application 10/461,709
6. Appellant further argues that claims 5, 7, 14, 18, 21, 30, 34, 38, and
41 claim sensing of the current levels of the transistor switches in the
two Buck circuits, which he alleges is not shown in Goluszek.
Examiner contends that the “error amplifiers measure the inductor
currents [which are] the same currents that flow through the
transistors 60, 70. Therefore the output current of [the] transistors are
also measured.” Referring to Goluszek’s Figure 5, we note that the
current flowing through transistor switch 60 also flows through
inductor 65 (diode 81 being non-conducting to that current). Thus we
find the Examiner’s contention accurate.
7. With regard to claims 32 and 40, the limitation “adapted to receive a
current command signal” is noted. We find, however, that the output
of Goluszek’s amplifiers 104 and 112, called current error amplifiers
in that reference, creates a set of signals that are the command signals
as claimed.
8. With respect to claims 57-60, we are drawn to carefully consider the
scope and meaning of the phrase “adapted to receive a user selectable
current command signal for controlling the magnitude of said
electrical pulse generated across said load.” Appellant contends that
the term must be viewed in terms of the Specification, which recites
that the user’s selection may be from such means as “adjusting a
potentiometer, or from a D-to-A (‘digital-to-analog’) converter that
receives the amplitude setting from a computer.” (Specification 8).
In Goluszek, Appellant contends, one merely has a set error signal
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013