Appeal No. 2006-1351
Application 10/246,653
presents the examiner’s views as to the rejection of each claim
on appeal and, correspondingly, the examiner in the Answer treats
all the arguments as to each claim on appeal presented in the
Brief.
According to the examiner’s view, it clearly appears to
us and to the artisan that the source of voltage, the supply and
return of the disclosed invention, is the output of the
transformer 8 in representative figures 1 and 2 of Nathanson.
Leads 24 and 29 at least correspond to the disclosed supply and
return leads of figure 2. As such, the examiner does not agree
with appellant’s urgings in the Brief that the artisan would
consider the transformer 8 and its various windings 9 through 11
of the figures as essentially setting forth a ballast with
respect to AC source 20 in Nathanson. There is no claim
limitation that distinguishes the examiner’s application of the
prior art. Moreover, the Brief Specification does not either.
Of great significance, as well, is the illustration of ballast CB
in disclosed prior art figure 1 and the invention disclosed in
figure 2 as comprising capacitors and not any form of transformer
or indicator.
We therefore agree with the examiner’s correlation of
the respective claimed elements of each claim on appeal to the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007