Appeal No. 1997-2856
Application 08/394,251
paragraph, as failing to provide an enabling disclosure and
failing to provide an adequate written description.
Claims 5, 6, 8-11, 15, and 18-31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Skwirut in view of
either Dale or Abernathy or Greene.
Claims 1, 2, 10, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Abernathy and Fodor.
Claims 12-14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Skwirut, Dale, Abernathy, and
Greene as applied in the rejection of claim 10, further in
view of Genuit.
Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Skwirut, Dale, Abernathy, Greene, and
Genuit.
Claims 3, 4, 12, 13, and 17 stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 6 and 7 of Nilssen '637 in view of
Abernathy and Skwirut. This statement of the rejection in the
Final Rejection and the Examiner's Answer appears to be what
was intended, while the discussion that "[c]laims 3, 4, 12, 13
and 17 of Nilssen '637 disclose an electronic ballast
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007