Appeal No. 1997-2856
Application 08/394,251
As to intersecting the ballast 15, figure 6 of Skwirut
discloses an embodiment with the ballast in the base so that a
plane would not intersect the ballast as it would in figure 1.
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that claims 9
and 10 would have been obvious. The rejection of claims 9 and
10 is sustained. The limitations of dependent claims 11, 15,
18, and 19 have not been separately argued and, therefore,
these claims fall with claim 10. The rejection of claims 11,
15, 18, and 19 is sustained.
Independent claims 20 and 27 have not been separately
argued and do not include limitations similar to those
Appellant has argued with respect to claims 5 and 10.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 20, 21, and 27-31 is
sustained pro forma. In addition, we note our agreement with
the Examiner's position (FR7) that the distance between the
cylindrical lamp sections would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. Skwirut discloses decreasing the
radius of curvature of the U-bends to reduce the spacing
between the tubular leg sections when a ballast is not located
in the middle of the lamp (col. 8, lines 38-43), which permits
"tighter bundling" of the tubular leg segments to reduce the
- 15 -
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007