Appeal No. 1997-2289
Application 08/395,691
1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388
(Fed. Cir. 1984)).
We take the exemplary claim 1. After considering
Appellant’s arguments [Brief, pages 4 to 6] and Examiner’s
position [Answer, pages 4 to 5 and 8 to 9], we are persuaded
by Appellant that Anderson does not show all the limitations
recited in claim 1. For example, in applying Anderson, the
Examiner has ignored the claimed limitation, “the frequency of
the alternating lamp current ... remaining substantially
constant during a complete period of the AC power line
voltage.” Therefore, the anticipation requirement is not met
by Anderson and we do not sustain the rejection, under 35
U.S.C. § 102, of claim 1 and other independent claims 8, 12
and 17 which each contain the same or corresponding
limitation.
For the same reason, we also reverse the anticipation
rejection of the respective dependent claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 11,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007