Appeal No. 2006-1351
Application 10/246,653
a capacitor coupled to the first node and to the second
node such that the capacitor is in parallel with the first lamp
and the ballast;
the first lamp being coupled to said ballast and to the
second node;
the second lamp being coupled to the second node; and
wherein the capacitor is chosen such that during normal
operation of the first and second lamps, current flow through the
capacitor is negligible.
The following reference is relied on by the examiner:
Nathanson 2,436,399 Feb. 24, 1948
Claims 1 through 14, 16 and 17 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nathanson.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and
the examiner, reference is made to the Brief and Reply Brief for
appellant’s positions, and to the Final Rejection and Answer for
the examiner’s positions.
OPINION
We affirm.
We note at the outset that the Reply Brief presents
essentially the same arguments as in the Brief except for new
arguments presented at pages 9 through 11. The Final Rejection
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007