Ex parte NILSSEN - Page 7

          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-              
               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                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007