Ex parte Nilssen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 3, 1999

08251125 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 3, 1999)

Application for patent filed May 31, 1994. According to1
appellant, this application is a continuation-in-part of
Application 07/846,014, filed March 4, 1992, now U.S. Patent
No. 5,446,346; which is a continuation-in-part of Application
07/734,188, filed July 22, 1991, now U.S. Patent No.
5,428,266; which is a continuation-in-part of Application
07/643,023, filed January 18, 1991; which is a continuation-
in-part of Application 06/787,692, filed October 15, 1985;
which is a continuation of Application 06/644,155, filed
August 27, 1984; which is a continuation of Application
06/555,426, filed November 23, 1983; which is a continuation
of Application 06/178,107, filed August 14, 1980; which is a
continuation-in-part of Application 05/973,741, filed December
28, 1978, now abandoned; which is a continuation-in-part of
Application 05/890,586, filed March 20, 1978, now U.S. Patent
No. 4,184,128.
1
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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte OLE K. NILSSEN
__________
Appeal No. 97-3673
Application 08/251,1251
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Appeal No. 97-3673
Application No. 08/251,125
2
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and KRASS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 10, all of the claims pending in the
application.
The invention is directed to electronic ballasts for gas
discharge lamps and, more particularly, to electronic ballasts
having a controlled DC supply voltage.
Representative independent claim 2 is reproduced as
follows:
2. An arrangement comprising:
an inverter circuit having: (i) DC terminals connected
with a DC supply voltage and operative to draw DC input power
therefrom, the magnitude of the DC supply voltage being
substantially unaffected by the amount of power drawn
therefrom; and (ii) AC terminals across which exists an AC
output voltage, the magnitude of the AC output voltage being
substantially proportional to the magnitude of the DC supply
voltage;
an L-C circuit having an inductor means and a capacitor
means effectively series-connected across the AC terminals,
thereby giving rise to resonant action such as to cause an
alternating current to be drawn from the AC terminals and a
ballast output voltage to develop across the capacitor means;
the capacitor means being connected with a pair of ballast
Appeal No. 97-3673
Application No. 08/251,125
3
output terminals; under a condition of little or no loading of
the L-C circuit, the L-C circuit having a natural resonance at
or near the fundamental frequency of the AC output voltage
and, due to resonant action, being operative to cause the
amplitude of the ballast output voltage to have a first
magnitude; under a condition of substantive loading of the L-C
circuit, the amplitude of the ballast output voltage having a
second magnitude; the second magnitude being distinctly lower
than the first magnitude;
gas discharge lamp means having a pair of lamp terminals
operable to connect with the ballast output terminals and
functional, when indeed so connected, to constitute said
substantive loading of the L-C circuit; and
auxiliary sub-assembly operable to be connected between
the L-C circuit and the inverter circuit; with the auxiliary
sub-assembly indeed so connected, and under said condition of
little or no loading of the L-C circuit, the auxiliary sub-
assembly being functional to cause the amplitude of the
ballast output voltage to be substantially lower than it would
have been in case it were not so connected.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Wallace 3,611,021 Oct. 5, 1971
Pierce 3,889,153 Jun. 10, 1975
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being based on an inadequate written
description.
Claims 1 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Wallace in view of Pierce.
Further, the examiner objects to the specification for
failing to provide proper antecedent bases for the claimed
Appeal No. 97-3673
Application No. 08/251,125
4
“first sub-circuit,” “second sub-circuit,” “third sub-
circuit,” and “fourth sub-circuit.”
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning first to the examiner’s objection to the
specification for failing to provide proper antecedent bases
for the various claimed sub-circuits, only claim 1 appears to
contain this language and there is no outstanding rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 before us. Nevertheless, to the
extent there is any rejection of claim 1 on this ground, we
note that the claim language to which the examiner objects
appears in the originally filed claim. Therefore, any
rejection of this claim based on the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 must fall.
Turning now to the rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, based on an inadequate written
description, we will not sustain this rejection. We agree
with appellant that the examiner’s rejection, alleging an
“impossibility” and that there will “always be a load across
two nodes that will drop the voltage across these two nodes,”
Appeal No. 97-3673
Application No. 08/251,125
5
is not comprehendible.
The examiner does further explain the rejection in the
response section of the answer and it appears clear that the
examiner is objecting to the claim language “the magnitude of
the AC output voltage being substantially the same
irrespective of the amount of power being drawn from the AC
terminals.” The examiner apparently takes the position that
because the claim calls for a constant voltage magnitude
irrespective of the amount of power being drawn, this is an
impossibility because in the case where load terminals are
shorted, the voltage thereacross would be zero although the
claims call for a constant voltage magnitude irrespective of
the amount of power drawn. Reading the claim language in view
of the specification, it is clear to us that the specification
describes a regulated induction circuit and we find nothing in
the claim language inconsistent therewith. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
We turn, finally, to the rejection of claims 1 through 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 8
Appeal No. 97-3673
Application No. 08/251,125
6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because, in our view, the examiner has
failed to present a prima facie case of obviousness with
regard to the claimed subject matter.
In particular, independent claims 1, 2 and 7 require an
inductor and a capacitor “series-connected” across the AC
terminals. While Wallace clearly discloses a capacitor 26 and
some impedance, there is no L-C circuit in Wallace which is
“series-connected” across the AC terminals, i.e., across the
same terminals which are connected to the lamp. The capacitor
26 in Wallace is connected in series with the lamp, and not
across, or parallel to, it. The examiner’s only response is
to point to “column 2, around line 60 of Wallace” which
describes “equivalent series impedance.” However, this
recitation in Wallace is not equivalent to a series-connected
capacitor-inductance connected across the AC terminals, as
claimed. We are also unconvinced that there would have been
any reason for the artisan to have combined Wallace and Pierce
in order to arrive at the instant claimed invention.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 97-3673
Application No. 08/251,125
7
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Kenneth W. Hairston ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Errol A. Krass )
Administrative Patent Judge )
tdc
Appeal No. 97-3673
Application No. 08/251,125
8
Ole K. Nilssen
408 Caesar Drive
Barrington, IL 60010