Appeal No. 1998-1288
Application No. 08/502,817
others). The examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to move the operating point in Zansky as taught by Cox
(answer, pages 4-5).
Appellant makes the following arguments: 1) appellant
argues that Zansky does not teach a loosely coupled auxiliary
winding coupled with a resonant inductor; 2) appellant argues
that the examiner has provided no logical basis to move the
operating point of Zansky or that Zansky’s circuit could be
improved by such modification; and 3) appellant argues that
the inverter circuits of Zansky and Cox are substantially
different and there is no basis for combining features from
these two incompatible circuits (brief, pages 3-6). The
examiner responds that the “looseness” of the coupling between
the inductor and the auxiliary winding involves only routine
skill in the art. The examiner also responds that the
operating point is a matter of design choice (answer, pages 7-
9).
We agree with the position argued by appellant. The
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Nowhere does Zansky disclose that the auxiliary
windings of his ballast circuit are loosely coupled to the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007