Ex parte NILSSEN - Page 7




          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,                


                                          7                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007