Appeal No. 96-0447
Application No. 08/145,731
of the operating circuit for the lamp, we do not find the
“same order of magnitude” limitation of the instant claims to
have been taught or suggested by Tenen (or, with regard to
claim 15, by Tenen in combination with Nerone).
As clearly explained by appellant, at pages 8-9 of the
principal brief, Tenen discloses a ratio between the energy
passed by the large capacitor 16 to the energy passed by the
small capacitor 27 of 122 which indicates that the energy of
the first circuit is not of the same order of magnitude as the
energy delivered by the second circuit. Contrast this with
the instant
invention where [see page 8 of the principal brief] the ratio
of the two energies is calculated to be 1.4, i.e., the same
order of magnitude.
While the examiner argues that it would have been obvious
to change the ratio of Tenen as the mere optimization of2
values within a workable range within general conditions
disclosed by the prior art, we agree with appellant that this
is not the case. First, if the ratio in Tenen were to be so
2The examiner agrees that Tenen does not disclose such
a ratio as claimed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007