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 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007