Appeal No. 97-3672
Application 08/515,312
the appellant. (Answer at 5). The examiner then indicates
that because Shackle teaches an equalizing operation to
improve the power factor, the appellant’s claimed feature
would have been obvious. The reasoning is without merit. The
examiner has not explained why the procedure used in Shackle
would have rendered obvious the appellant’s claimed invention
having the particular resonance frequency matching limitation.
The fact that Shackle teaches that it is desirable to improve
the power factor for running a discharge lamp by a different
equalization technique as applied to Shackle’s own lamp
circuit does not render obvious the particular feature
required by the appellant’s claimed circuit.
We agree with appellant that the examiner has failed to
set forth a prima facie case of obviousness. The examiner has
provided no evidence to show that the claimed resonance
frequency range would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art or even that it would have been desirable to
match the resonance frequency of the circuit formed by the one
inductor and two capacitors to some range of the operating
frequency of the DC-AC converter. While Shackle teaches a
circuit arrangement with a high power factor for a discharge
lamp, much more is needed to support a conclusion of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007