Appeal No. 1997-2289 Application 08/395,691 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). We take the exemplary claim 1. After considering Appellant’s arguments [Brief, pages 4 to 6] and Examiner’s position [Answer, pages 4 to 5 and 8 to 9], we are persuaded by Appellant that Anderson does not show all the limitations recited in claim 1. For example, in applying Anderson, the Examiner has ignored the claimed limitation, “the frequency of the alternating lamp current ... remaining substantially constant during a complete period of the AC power line voltage.” Therefore, the anticipation requirement is not met by Anderson and we do not sustain the rejection, under 35 U.S.C. § 102, of claim 1 and other independent claims 8, 12 and 17 which each contain the same or corresponding limitation. For the same reason, we also reverse the anticipation rejection of the respective dependent claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007