Ex parte Nilssen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 21, 1999

08292928 (B.P.A.I. May. 21, 1999)

Application for patent filed August 18, 1994. 1
According to appellant, this application is a continuation of
Application No. 07/912,261 filed July 13, 1992, now abandoned;
which is a continuation-in-part of Application No. 07/901,989
filed June 22, 1992, now U.S. Patent No. 5,469,028 issued
November 21, 1995.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was
not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte OLE K. NILSSEN
____________
Appeal No. 96-1582
Application No. 08/292,9281
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and KRASS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 96-1582
Application No. 08/292,928
2
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 40, all of the claims pending.
The invention is directed to circuitry for ballasting a
gas discharge lamp.
Representative independent claim 16 is reproduced as
follows:
16. An arrangement for ballasting a gas discharge lamp,
comprising:
a power line providing a substantially sinusoidal AC
power line voltage at a pair of power line conductors; the
power line conductors being electrically connected with earth
ground;
a rectifier arrangement connected with the power line
conductors and operative: (i) to draw a line current
therefrom; and (ii) to provide a first DC voltage across a
first pair of DC terminals; the instantaneous absolute
magnitude of the first DC voltage being substantially equal to
that of the AC power line voltage; and
a circuit arrangement connected with the first pair of DC
terminals and functional to provide a high-frequency ballast
output voltage between a pair of ballast output terminals; the
ballast output terminals being operable to connect with a gas
discharge lamp; the high-frequency ballast output voltage
being of magnitude sufficient to ignite such a gas discharge
lamp and to supply it with a high-frequency lamp current; the
circuit arrangement being characterized by including an
inverter circuit supplied with DC power from a second pair of
DC terminals across which exists a second DC voltage of
substantially constant magnitude; at least part of the DC
power supplied to the inverter circuit being derived from the
ballast output terminals by way of an auxiliary DC source
Appeal No. 96-1582
Application No. 08/292,928
3
means connected in circuit with the ballast output terminals
as well as with the second pair of DC terminals.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Stupp et al. (Stupp) 4,560,908 Dec. 24,
1985
Claims 1 through 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Stupp.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We will sustain the rejection of claims 8, 15, 34 through
36 and 38 through 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 but we will not
sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 7, 9 through 14, 16
through 33 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner applies Stupp against all of the pending
claims. Stupp is directed, as is the instant invention, to a
high-frequency ballast for discharge lamps. Also, like the
instant claimed invention, Stupp discloses a power line which
provides a substantially sinusoidal AC power line voltage and
Appeal No. 96-1582
Application No. 08/292,928
4
a rectifier (bridge rectifier 10 in Stupp) connected to the
power line and operative to draw a line current and to provide
a DC voltage across a pair of DC terminals.
As appellant argues, claim 1 requires that the line
current drawn by the rectifier have a “substantially
sinusoidal waveform.”
Whereas the instant claimed invention requires the line
current drawn by the rectifier to have a “substantially
sinusoidal waveform,” as shown, for example, in instant Figure
3d, Figure 2A of Stupp, which is indicative of a voltage, not
current, shows a sinusoidal waveform which has been clipped to
a constant voltage value V Min every half cycle. The waveform
of Stupp’s Figure 2A is, therefore, not “substantially
sinusoidal,” as required by claim 1. Further, even, if by
some stretch of the imagination, Figure 2A of Stupp could be
considered to show a “substantially sinusoidal waveform” of
the line current drawn by the rectifier, instant claim 1
defines a “substantially sinusoidal waveform” as being a
“waveform having not more than 10% total harmonic distortion.”
The examiner has pointed to nothing in the prior art which
suggests that the waveform shown in Figure 2A of Stupp has not
Appeal No. 96-1582
Application No. 08/292,928
5
more than 10% total harmonic distortion. We note that Stupp
does suggest that it is desirable to have a low harmonic
distortion, indicating at column 7, lines 43-53 that “above
40% for the third harmonic” would be an “unacceptable level of
line current harmonic contents.” However, we find no
suggestion therein of the more limited and specifically
claimed “not more than 10% total harmonic distortion.”
Thus, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Turning now to independent claim 16, appellant argues
that the claim requires the instantaneous absolute magnitude
of the first DC voltage be “substantially equal” to that of
the AC power line voltage.
The examiner relies on Figure 2A of Stupp and contends
that this is a
voltage waveform of the current produced at the
output terminals of rectifier 10, which magnitude,
the examiner maintains, would be “substantially
equal” to that of the AC power line voltage’s in the
absense [sic] of a transformer or other circuitry
that would effect a substantial difference in
voltage magnitude of the two voltages [emphasis in
the original-answer-page 3].
Appeal No. 96-1582
Application No. 08/292,928
6
First, even the examiner appears to admit that the
magnitude of the voltage at the output of the rectifier in
Stupp is not substantially equal to that of the AC power line
voltage, alleging that they “would be” in the absence of other
circuitry. Even if the examiner’s allegation is assumed to be
correct, the examiner has indicated no motivation or
suggestion in the prior art for making the proposed
modification, viz., eliminating a transformer or other
circuitry from Stupp. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection,
on its face, is in error.
Moreover, Figure 2A of Stupp shows a waveform which
begins as a sinusoidal waveform but then is clipped to a
constant voltage every half cycle whereas the AC power line
voltage has a full sinusoidal waveform. Accordingly, one
cannot say that the instantaneous absolute magnitude of the DC
voltage across the pair of rectifier output terminals in Stupp
is “substantially equal” to that of the AC power line voltage,
as claimed.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal No. 96-1582
Application No. 08/292,928
7
We also will not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 9, 12, 17, 18, 23 and 29, and the claims which depend
therefrom, as well as dependent claim 37, because these claims
include limitations discussed supra with regard to claims 1
and 16.
However, we will sustain the rejection of claims 8, 15,
34 through 36 and 38 through 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 since
these claims include none of the limitations argued by
appellant as distinguishing over the applied reference.
Arguments not made by appellant are waived. In re Kroekel,
803 F.2d 705, 709, 231 USPQ 640, 642-643 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1 through
7,
9 through 14, 16 through 33 and 37 but we have sustained the
rejection of claims 8, 15, 34 through 36 and 38 through 40.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
Appeal No. 96-1582
Application No. 08/292,928
8
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
bae
Appeal No. 96-1582
Application No. 08/292,928
9
Ole K. Nilssen
408 Caesar Drive
Barrington, IL 60010