Ex parte NEPOTE et al. - Page 2

                 Appeal No. 1997-1231                                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 08/308,985                                                                                                             

                                                           DECISION ON APPEAL                                                                           
                          This is an appeal from the final rejection  of claims 1 to                 1                                                  
                          The disclosed invention relates to a ballast for a                                                                            
                 gas-discharge lamp, particularly for use in motor vehicles.                                                                            
                 The ballast of the present invention comprises a switched                                                                              
                 DC/DC converter means comprising a switched DC/DC converter of                                                                         
                 the “fly-back” type and a second switched DC/DC converter of                                                                           
                 the “feed-forward” type.  This structure of the two specific                                                                           
                 DC/DC converters is smaller in dimension than previous devices                                                                         
                 while being able to start the lamp and a subsequent low                                                                                
                 voltage with high electrical power to support the passage of a                                                                         
                 large current through the lamp during the warming-up and                                                                               
                 steady-state operation of the lamp.  The ballast contains an                                                                           

                          1The first final rejection was mailed as paper no. 6.                                                                         
                 There was an amendment (paper no. 11) after that final                                                                                 
                 rejection, which was approved for entry (paper no. 12).  As a                                                                          
                 result of the amendment, claim 13 was allowed.  Claim 12 had                                                                           
                 already been indicated to contain allowable matter.  Another                                                                           
                 final rejection was mailed as paper no. 13.  This final                                                                                
                 rejection is the same as the first final rejection, except                                                                             
                 that claim 10 had been inadvertently omitted from the first                                                                            
                 final rejection.  The grounds of rejection in both the final                                                                           
                 rejections are the same.                                                                                                               

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007