Court Opinions
State Laws
|
Ex parte NILSSEN - Page 4
Legal Research Home >
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 1997 > Ex parte NILSSEN - Page 4
Appeal No. 95-3616 Page 4
Application 07/839,065
the examiner's position that no current passes through the
ballast circuit. Genuit teaches that the ballast circuit must be
initiated by momentary contact with the voltage source 13 through
a 15 kS resistor. We also find, however, that Genuit does not
teach a resistor or capacitor as part of the lamp circuit.
7. Appellant has neither contested the level of skill in
the art nor presented evidence of secondary considerations for us
to consider on this appeal.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Claims 63 and 67 are indefinite
1. The examiner rejected claims 63 and 67 because the
phrase "the capacitor" in those claims lacks any antecedent
basis. The Appellant has not responded to this rejection. We2
see no fault in the rejection. Consequently, we affirm the
rejection of these claims pro forma.3
2 Coincidently, claims 63 and 67 are missing from the
appendix of appealed claims filed with Appellant's brief.
3 We note also that claim 69 appears to be missing a
word. We understand the claim to read, in part, as follows:
. . . the ballast circuit being further characterized
by providing the AC voltage only after having received
a trigger signal . . .
(Paper 50 at 4, underlined word added.) We encourage Appellant
to amend the claim to clarify its meaning.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: November 3, 2007
|
|
