Appeal No. 1997-1231
Application No. 08/308,985
After discussing Roberts and Oda (brief, pages 12 to 18),
Appellants conclude that “neither reference, nor the
combination, disclose a ballast including two-separate DC/DC
converters, one of the ‘fly-back’ type and a second of the
‘feed-forward’ type, as specifically recited in Claim 1 of the
present application
. . . . Accordingly, a prime facie care [sic, case] of
obviousness has not been made out . . . . ” (Id. 18).
The Examiner responds by concluding that “[t]he crux of
the invention lies in the two DC sources . . . . , Roberts
shows a sort of fly-back converter arrangement in figure 3
that produces a DC voltage . . . . The use of another [DC
source] for the main powering is taught by Oda . . . . [T]he
use of the optimum converter for the particular circuit would
have been obvious
. . . . These converters are well known. That is the crux of
the invention and it is taught by the prior art.” (Answer,
page 7) (emphasis added).
While we agree with the Examiner that DC/DC converters
are well known, as are most of the other things which go to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007