Appeal No. 1996-1664
Application No. 08/272,647
periods and voltage levels in this claim read directly on
Figure 2 in Quazi.
With respect to the duration of one time period being
"substantially different" (claim 33) or "significant longer"
(claim 34) than the duration of the other time period, we are
still of the opinion that the control circuit and pulse-width
variation teachings of Quazi would have suggested the claimed
time periods, especially for dimming control (Brief, pages 3
and 5).
Appellant’s argument (Brief, page 4) that the output
voltage disclosed in Figure 2 of Quazi shows "a significant
component of unidirectional voltage" is inconsistent with the
remainder of the disclosure in Quazi.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 32 through
34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007