Appeal 2007-1293
Application 10/745,124
ISSUE
RELATED TO ANTICIPATION BASED UPON KONOPKA
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3 as
anticipated by Konopka is in error. Appellant states that claim 1 calls for a
feedback resistor and argues that Konopka does not teach a feedback resistor.3
Appellant argues the resistor the Examiner calls a feedback resistor is not a
feedback resistor but a pull up resistor. (Br. 9.)
The Examiner contends that the rejection of claims 1 through 3 as
anticipated by Konopka is proper. The Examiner finds that Konopka’s resistor,
item 628, is a feedback resistor. (Answer 3.) Further, the Examiner states
“[a]lthought the resistor (628) may function as a pull-up resistor; it clearly can be
described as a feedback resistor since it connects the output (626) to the input
(622) of the comparator.” (Answer 7.)
Thus, Appellant’s contention presents us with the issue of whether Konopka
teaches a feedback resistor as recited in claim 1.
FINDINGS OF FACT
RELATED TO ANTICIPATION BASED UPON KONOPKA
1. Konopka teaches a system for dimming control using electronic
ballasts. Abstract.
3 Appellant presents additional arguments as to why this rejection is in error.
However, as discussed infra, we find that the issue concerning the feedback
resistor is dispositive. Therefore, we do not address the other issues for the sake of
brevity.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013