Appeal No. 97-1046 Page 5
Application No. 08/274,481
The examiner’s treatment of these specifically recited
claim features is to state, at page 2 of the final rejection
(Paper No. 6), that “the conditioner circuit [is] notoriously
well known in the art to draw low frequency line current and
supply high frequency lamp current to the lamp.” At pages 3-4
of the answer, the examiner states that the unidirectional
voltage feature is seen in Figure 5a of Steigerwald in that
“there are an infinite number of points along the
unidirectional chopper...input voltage waveform...where the
instantaneous absolute magnitude meets the...characterization
criteria.”
For his part, appellant strenuously argues these claimed
limitations, at pages 3-4 of the brief, contending that the
lamp current in Steigerwald is of the same frequency as that
of the power line voltage, pointing to various portions of
Steigerwald for support. Appellant further contends that the
unidirectional voltage absolute instantaneous magnitude
feature, as claimed, and as illustrated in instant Figure 7c
is neither described nor suggested by Steigerwald.
With regard to the lamp current frequency, the examiner
appears to take alternative approaches. As noted, supra, in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007