Appeal No. 97-3673
Application No. 08/251,125
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because, in our view, the examiner has
failed to present a prima facie case of obviousness with
regard to the claimed subject matter.
In particular, independent claims 1, 2 and 7 require an
inductor and a capacitor “series-connected” across the AC
terminals. While Wallace clearly discloses a capacitor 26 and
some impedance, there is no L-C circuit in Wallace which is
“series-connected” across the AC terminals, i.e., across the
same terminals which are connected to the lamp. The capacitor
26 in Wallace is connected in series with the lamp, and not
across, or parallel to, it. The examiner’s only response is
to point to “column 2, around line 60 of Wallace” which
describes “equivalent series impedance.” However, this
recitation in Wallace is not equivalent to a series-connected
capacitor-inductance connected across the AC terminals, as
claimed. We are also unconvinced that there would have been
any reason for the artisan to have combined Wallace and Pierce
in order to arrive at the instant claimed invention.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007