Appeal No. 1998-1915 Page 8
Application No. 08/670,123
anticipate or would have suggested the limitations to "supply
a first alternating- current electric power to the discharge
lamp during a time interval immediately after activation of
the discharge lamp, ... supply a second alternating-current
electric power to the discharge lamp after the time interval
elapses; wherein the second alternating-current electric power
has a frequency higher than a frequency of the first
alternating-current electric power." Therefore, we reverse
the rejection of claims 11-18 as anticipated by Yamashita and
the rejection of claims 11-18 as obvious over Yamashita in
view of Leyten.
Claims 9 and 10
The appellants no longer contest the rejection of claims
9 and 10. "‘[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which
every application is subjected, is to try to make sure that
what each claim defines is patentable. [T]he name of the game
is the claim ....’” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich,
The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of
Claims--American Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. &
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007