Appeal No. 1998-1288
Application No. 08/502,817
frequency. The modification of Zansky by Cox as proposed by
the examiner is not suggested by the collective teachings of
these references.
Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 2, 12 and 13 based on the collective teachings of
Zansky and Cox.
We now consider the rejection of claims 3-6 based on the
collective teachings of Zansky, Cox, Cates and Warren.
Although these claims do not have the loosely coupled
recitation of claim 1, they do recite the feature of the
naturally resonant frequency of the series connection of the
inductor and the capacitor being less than the fundamental
frequency of the alternating voltage. Cates and Warren were
cited by the examiner to meet additional recitations of these
claims directed to a current limiting means connected between
the auxiliary winding and the gas discharge lamp. In addition
to the arguments considered above, appellant argues that there
is no motivation to modify the circuit of Zansky with the
teachings of Cates and Warren and no benefit to the Zansky
circuit would result therefrom (brief, pages 6-7).
As noted above, we fail to find any teachings in the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007