Appeal No. 1997-2856
Application 08/394,251
Claim 4 contains limitations similar to claims 14 and 12
together. We reverse the rejection of claims 3 and 4 over
Skwirut, Dale, Abernathy, Greene, and Genuit for the reasons
stated in reversing the rejection of claims 12 and 13 over the
same combination of references.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner's finding that
Skwirut lacks a half-bridge ballast fails to make sense
(Br13). We agree for the reasons stated with respect to the
rejection of claim 12-14, 16, and 17.
The rejection of claims 1 and 2 is sustained for the
reasons discussed with respect to claims 5 and 10.
Obviousness-type double patenting
An obviousness-type double patenting rejection prevents
an applicant from extending his patent term beyond statutory
limits where an application claims merely an obvious variant
of the claims in a prior patent. See In re Goodman,
11 F.3d 1046, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2015 (Fed. Cir. 1993);
In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441, 164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970).
Thus, we examine the claims to determine whether one defines
merely an obvious variation of the other.
- 23 -
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007