Appeal No. 1996-1664
Application No. 08/272,647
that feeds a series resonant LC circuit" (Decision, pages 9
and 10).
OPINION
The obviousness rejection of claim 32 through 34 is
sustained in view of the rationale set forth in the Board’s
decision in the parent application, and the pulse-width
modulation teachings of Quazi discussed in the Board’s
decision in the grandparent application.
According to Quazi, the control circuit C1 (Figures 8 and
9) "varies the duty cycle of the control pulses occurring at
outputs A and B to thus effect dimming or the control of the
light intensity" (column 6, lines 50 through 53). "By varying
the pulse width, the pulse repetition frequency remains
unchanged and thus matched to the resonant frequency of the
series resonant circuit" (column 6, lines 53 through 56).
The two broadly claimed time periods in claim 32 could be
the same, and the two broadly claimed voltage levels in claim
32 could be the same as well. Claim 32 does not, therefore,
have any support for the argument concerning a voltage
"spending more time at the first level than at the second
level" (Brief, page 3). In any event, the claimed time
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007