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:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007