Appeal No. 1997-2289
Application 08/395,691
Now we analyze the two groups separately.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 to 7
These claims are rejected over Ganser and Stevens. Take
claim 1 as illustrative. We have reviewed Examiner’s position
[answer, pages 6, 7 and 9] and the Appellant’s position
[brief, pages 6 to 8] and conclude that the Examiner has
ignored some of the claimed limitations. For example, neither
Ganser nor Stevens, singly or in combination, show the claimed
limitation, “the frequency of the alternating lamp current ...
remaining constant during a complete period of the AC power
line voltage.” Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2 and 4 to 7
over Ganser and Stevens.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 10, 14 and 15
These claims are rejected over Anderson and Stevens.
They variously depend on independent claims 1, 8 and 12
discussed above under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Anderson. By
virtue of their dependence on said independent claims, they
each contain, besides other limitations, the claimed
limitation, “the frequency of the alternating lamp current ...
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007