Ex Parte Griffin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 26, 2006

10246653 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 26, 2006)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte JOHN M. GRIFFIN
__________
Appeal No. 2006-1351
Application 10/246,653
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before THOMAS, RUGGIERO, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 through 14, 16 and 17.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. An illumination circuit, comprising:
a first lamp and a second lamp;
a ballast coupled between a first node and a second
node via the first lamp;
Appeal No. 2006-1351
Application 10/246,653
2
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
Appeal No. 2006-1351
Application 10/246,653
3
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.
BOf great significance, as well, is the illustration of ballast C
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
Appeal No. 2006-1351
Application 10/246,653
4
corresponding elements of principally figure 2 in Nathanson. As
characterized by the examiner, the lead 24 directly feeds
capacitor 18 as the claimed ballast in series with the first
lamp 6. The lead 24 also directly feeds at node 26 the
capacitor 19 to junction/node 31 between lamp 6 and lamp 5, and
does so in a manner electrically parallel with the series
connection of lamp 6 and the ballast capacitor 18. Of particular
note as well is the examiner’s explanation and diagrams of the
corresponding claims in the Answer at page 4, pages 5 and 6, and
at pages 8 and 9 as well as at pages 10 and 11. The Reply Brief
does not address these correlations to the claimed subject
matter.
Each embodiment in Nathanson teaches plural fluorescent
tubes in series. These plural fluorescent tubes are sequentially
ignited and controlled in the same manner as disclosed. Note as
to figures 1 and 2 the discussion at column 3, lines 22-30,
lines 54-60, and line 68 through column 4 at line 23. A
corresponding discussion exists as to figures 3 and 4 at
column 6, line 65 through column 7, line 7. A corresponding
discussion begins at the bottom of column 10 as to the embodi-
ments in figures 11 and 12. Each of these embodiments in
Appeal No. 2006-1351
Application 10/246,653
5
figures 1-2, 3-4 and 11-12 shows two fluorescent tubes in series
in what Nathanson characterizes as the “condensive side.” That
Nathanson employs certain current-limiting capacitors in bypass
(parallel) configurations does not detract from their ability to
meet the structure and interconnected arrangement of the claims
recited on appeal.
The discussion beginning at the bottom of page 2 of the
Final Rejection addresses the substance of the “wherein” clause
at the end of claim 1 on appeal which appears as well in
independent claims 2, 9, 13 and 16. The artisan would well
expect that the current flow through a capacitor would be
negligible during normal operation of a fluorescent lamp after
its ignition since most of the voltage drop available would be
across the lamp alone and/or a series ballast.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed.
Appeal No. 2006-1351
Application 10/246,653
6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in con-
nection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JDT:psb
Appeal No. 2006-1351
Application 10/246,653
7
Philips Intellectual Property & Standards
P.O. Box 3001
Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510