Appeal No. 1997-2856
Application 08/394,251
Claims 6 and 7 of Nilssen '637 are directed to an
electronic ballast, not to a fluorescent lamp structure as
claimed in the present application. The claims of the present
application are not to essentially the same invention and are
not trying to claim merely an obvious variant of the claims in
Nilssen '637. An obviousness-type double patenting rejection
is improper in this case. Moreover, since claims 3 and 4
depend on claim 1 and claims 12, 13, and 17 depend on claim
10, it is not apparent why the Examiner has rejected the
dependent claims without rejecting the independent claims from
which they depend. The rejection of claims 3, 4, 12, 13, and
17 is reversed.
- 24 -
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007