Appeal No. 97-1046 Page 6
Application No. 08/274,481
the final rejection, the examiner first contends that such is
“notoriously well known.” Then, in the answer, while still
maintaining this position, the examiner also appears to rely
on the chopper transistor 19 of Steigerwald since this
transistor is disclosed as having a high frequency chopping
rate between
10-40KHz (column 4, lines 53-55).
While we have no doubt of the notoriety of providing lamp
currents having a frequency much higher than the AC power line
voltage, the examiner is put to his proof when challenged by
appellant to provide evidence of that which the examiner
alleges is “notoriously well known.” There is reversible
error when the examiner takes official notice of a feature as
being old in the art and such is challenged by appellant, as
here, and the examiner fails to cite the well known thing on
which he relies. Ex parte Nobel, 158 USPQ 237 (Bd. of Appeals
1967).
With regard to the examiner’s reliance on the chopper
transistor 19 of Steigerwald, while it may be that the high
switching rate of the transistor might cause the lamp current
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007