Appeal No. 1997-3995
Application No. 07/952,303
this argument. Appellant argues that the specific features of
the inverter recited in claim 28 have not been addressed by
the examiner. The examiner does not respond to this argument.
For the same reasons discussed above, the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 28 or of claims 29 and 33-37 which depend therefrom.
Since independent claim 38 has limitations similar to the
limitations discussed above with respect to other claims, we
do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 38 or of
claims 39-41 and 43 which depend therefrom.
We now consider the rejection on double patenting.
The complete rejection is set forth as follows:
Claims 1-9, 17-20, 28-29 and 33-43 are rejected
under the judicially created doctrine of double
patenting over claims 1-19 of U. S. Patent No.
5,189,342 since the claims, if allowed, would
improperly extend the “right to exclude” already
granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant
application is fully disclosed in the patent and
is covered by the patent since the patent and
the application are claiming common subject
matter, as follows: They are both directed to
the same kind of self-oscillatory inverter
ballast circuits..
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007