Appeal No. 1996-1577
Application No. 08/215,205
Appellant argues that the apparatus of claim 1 is
recited in means plus function form and that the examiner has
failed to properly consider the functional language of claim 1
[brief, pages 3-6]. We agree with appellant.
The examiner frequently defines appellant’s invention
as the application of an entire voltage waveform to a lamp
followed by application of a reduced voltage to the lamp and
ballast [answer, pages 9 and 12]. This simplistic reduction
of appellant’s invention ignores some of the limitations
clearly set forth in claim 1. The claimed first means must
operate both in response to initial application of power to
the lamps or in response to a momentary interruption of power
to the lamps to provide a specific voltage to each ballast of
the lamps as set forth in appellant’s specification. We fail
to see how Helmuth performs the function of the first means
under both conditions as disclosed and claimed. The claimed
second means progressively reduces the AC supply to each
ballast. Helmuth does not even disclose a plurality of lamps
and ballasts. The claimed third means maintains the
application of the reduced AC supply voltage even when the
signals which initiated the reduction are removed. We fail to
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007