Appeal No. 1998-1288
Application No. 08/502,817
case of obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met,
the burden then shifts to the applicant to overcome the prima
facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then
determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the
relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See Id.; In re
Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788
(Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 2, 12 and 13
based on the teachings of Zansky and Cox. These claims stand
or fall together, and we will consider claim 1 as the
representative claim. The examiner asserts that Zansky
teaches an auxiliary winding loosely coupled to the resonant
inductor of an electronic ballast for gas discharge tubes.
According to the examiner, the only feature of claim 1 not
taught by Zansky is the setting of the operating point at
something other than the resonant point. The examiner asserts
that it is well known to operate on either side of the
resonant point as allegedly taught by Cox (and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007