Ex parte NILSSEN - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1997-2289                                                        
          Application 08/395,691                                                      


          via a tuned LC circuit, with a gas discharge lamp and operable              
          to supply an alternating lamp current thereto, the frequency                
          of the alternating lamp current being many times higher than                
          that of the AC power line voltage and remaining substantially               
          constant during a complete                                                  


          period of the AC power line voltage; and (iii) control                      
          circuitry responsive to the control voltage and functional to               
          control the magnitude of the lamp current supplied to the gas               
          discharge lamp and thereby the amount of light generated                    
          thereby.                                                                    
               The Examiner relies on the following references:                       
          Anderson                      4,127,798                Nov. 28,             
          1978                                                                        
          Stevens                  4,277,728                Jul.  7, 1981             
          Ganser et al. (Ganser)   4,471,269                Sep. 11, 1984             
               Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  112, first                   
          paragraph.                                                                  
               Claim 1, 2, 5, 7 to 9, 11 to 13, and 16 to 19 stand                    
          rejected under 35 U.S.C.  102 over Anderson.                               
               Claims 1, 2 and 4 to 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                 
          103 over Ganser in view of Stevens.                                         
               Claims 3, 4, 6, 10, 14 and 15 stand rejected over                      
          Anderson and Stevens.                                                       
          Rather than repeat the positions and the arguments of                       



                                          3                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007