Appeal No. 1997-3995
Application No. 07/952,303
the examiner points out certain teachings of Walden and Burke
and concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to person of
ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to combine
the references of Burke and Walden in the configuration set
forth by applicant’s invention because Walden switches allow
for the convenient switching to drive a discharge lamp and
Burke allows the rapid starting of fluorescent lamp system
over a first and second time interval thereby facilitating
timing and controlling of the oscillator circuit” [final
rejection, page 4].
With respect to claim 1, appellant argues that Walden
does not generate an output voltage that is periodic and
substantially sinusoidal as asserted by the examiner. The
examiner does not respond to this argument. Appellant points
to additional specific features of claim 1 and asks the
examiner to point out how these specific features are rendered
obvious by the applied prior art. The examiner does not
respond to this argument. Appellant points to the examiner’s
reasoning in support of obviousness quoted above and argues
that the reasoning makes no sense because there is no
motivation to combine the teachings of Burke with Moore and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007