Ex parte GIBSON

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 28, 1998

08118878 (B.P.A.I. May. 28, 1998)

Application for patent filed September 9, 1993.1
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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte J. ALAN GIBSON
____________
Appeal No. 96-1342
Application 08/118,8781
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, BARRETT and CARMICHAEL, Administrative
Patent Judges.
CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 96-1342
Application 08/118,878
2
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1, 3, 4, and 10-13. The other claims remaining in the
application, claims 5, 7-9, and 14-27, have been indicated as
being directed to patentable subject matter.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A remote ballasting apparatus for starting
and operating a gaseous discharge lamp which allows operation
of the lamp at frequencies in excess of 10 kilohertz and at a
predetermined distance from the power supply comprising a high
frequency power supply and suitable current limiting means
connected to the primary winding of an isolation transformer
comprising at least a primary winding and first and second
secondary windings arranged in a center tapped secondary
configuration and wound to minimize interwinding capacitance,
a low capacitance power transmission cable having an input end
and an output end comprising a first and second conductor with
insulation means and an outer sheathing conductor surrounding
said first and second conductor and insulated from both said
conductors connected with the input end of said first and
second conductors connected to the first and second secondary
windings respectively of said isolation transformer and the
sheathing conductor connected to the center tap of said
isolation transformer, the output end of said power
transmission cable is connected with the first conductor
connected to one end of a gaseous discharge lamp and the
second conductor connected to the other end of said gaseous
discharge lamp.
The examiner’s answer cites the following prior art:
Knoll 4,158,156 Jan. 12, 1979
Nelson 4,229,780 Oct. 21, 1980
Moisin 5,081,401 Jan. 14, 1992
Appeal No. 96-1342
Application 08/118,878
3
OPINION
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Nelson in view of Knoll or Moisin.
The examiner’s rejections rely on broadly
interpreting the recited “outer sheathing conductor” to
include a sheath which mechanically guides (conducts) other
components such as in Nelson
but which is not electrically conductive. Appellants argue
that the recited phrase cannot be so broadly interpreted.
Claims undergoing examination are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and limitations appearing in the specification
are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc).
In the present case, the “outer sheathing conductor”
is recited as “connected to the center tap of said isolation
transformer.” Because the outer sheathing conductor must
connect to electrical components, “conductor” is impliedly
limited to “electrical conductor.” Therefore, the examiner’s
Appeal No. 96-1342
Application 08/118,878
4
rejections are based on an impermissibly broad claim
interpretation.
Moreover, the examiner offers no rationale for
connecting any outer sheathing to the center tap as required
by the claims.
CONCLUSION
The rejections are not sustained.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Appeal No. 96-1342
Application 08/118,878
5
Administrative Patent Judge) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge)
Andrew L. Ney
Ratner & Prestia
500 North Gulph Road
P.O. Box 980
Valley Forge, PA 19482