Ex parte NEPOTE et al. - Page 5

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

               the 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,                                                        
               the control circuitry being arranged to drive the                      
               dc/dc converters in a manner such that, each time                      
               the lamp is switched on, first the "fly-back"                          
          converter      is activated in order to generate the very                   
               voltage and, subsequently, the "feed-forward"                          
          converter      is activated in order to generate the low                    
          voltage with     high electrical power.                                     
               The references relied on by the Examiner are:                          
          Ruff et al. (Ruff)       4,469,981           Sep.   4, 1984                 
          Roberts                  4,709,188           Nov.  24, 1987                 
          Oda et al. (Oda)    5,151,631                Sep.  29, 1992                 
               Claims 1, 4 to 6, 7, 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35                   
          U.S.C.  103 over Roberts and Oda, while 2, 3, 10 and 11 stand              
          rejected over Roberts, Oda and Ruff.                                        
                   Reference is made to Appellants’ brief and the                    
          Examiner's answer for their respective positions.                           
               We have considered the record before us, and we will                   
          reverse the rejection of claims 1 to 11.                                    
               With respect to claims 1 to 11, the Examiner has failed                
          to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness.  It is the                  

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007