Patents

Decision Information

Decision Content

                     COMMISSIONER'S DECISION

 

Obvious: The rejected claims were replaced by a claim to the safety feature of the

conductively isolated winding in the circuit, thus clearing the cited art. Rejection

modified.

 

This decision deals with Applicant's request for review by the

Commissioner of Patents of the Examiner's Final Action on

application 500,113 (Class 315-44). The application was filed on

January 22, 1986, by N.V. Philips Gloeilampen Fabrieken and is

entitled ELECTRIC ARRANGEMENT FOR REGULATING THE LUMINOUS

INTENSITY OF AT LEAST ONE DISCHARGE LAMP. The inventor is J.M.

van Meurs. The Examiner in charge issued a Final Action on May

9, 1989, refusing to allow the claims of the application.

 

Subsequent to the response to the Final Action, the Applicant

submitted a single claim by letter dated April 18, 1990.

 

The invention provides an electrical circuit for regulating the

luminous intensity of at least one discharge lamp by means of one

variable non-capacitive impedance, as shown in figure 1

reproduced below.

 

                       (See formula 1)

 

The variable impedance 115 that is used to regulate discharge

lamps 15 and 15' is part of a control circuit that is

electrically conductively isolated from that part of the circuit

that forms part of a DC/AC converter for the high-frequency

supply of the discharge lamps. The alternating voltage source 1,

2, is rectified by the bridge 3 and is lead to input terminals A

and B of the converter. Among the several components

interconnected between A and B are transistors 11 and 20, 11

being part of a control device having a secondary winding 30, and

20 being part of a control device having a secondary winding 31.

30 and 31 are magnetically coupled to a primary winding 12.

Transistor 11 is also part of a series combination including

primary winding 12, a load circuit 13, a first winding 110, and a

capacitor 14. Load circuit 13 has two parallel branches each

carrying one of the above discharge lamps. The current from the

lamps flows through the first winding 110 which surrounds an

undivided ferromagnetic core 111 that carries and magnetically

couples a third winding 118. A second winding 112 is

magnetically coupled by core 111 to 110 and 118, but is not

electrically connected to them, thus providing protection against

electrical contact in operating the variable impedance 115 when

regulating lamps 15, 15'.

 

In the Final Action, the Examiner cited the following United

States Patent:

 

4,017,785                Apr. 12, 1977              Perper

 

Figure 1 of the Perper patent is reproduced below:

 

                          (See formula 1)

 

The Examiner refused the Applicant's two claims in view of

Perper, saying in part, as follows:

 

...

 

The above reference shows a discharge lamp operating

circuit and claim 1 may be read thereon as follows:

 

Claim 1                                  Perper

"An electric arrangement                 See figures 1 and 2,

--at least one discharge                 discharge lamp "21"

lamp"

 

"---circuit having a                    The circuit of Perper has

first winding arranged to               a first winding "14" on

surround a core of                      core "13".

magnetizable material"

 

"this winding--supply of                The winding "14" is the

the discharge lamp"                     primary winding for the

                                        transformer energizing

                                        lamp "21".

 "and this core--a second                A second winding "15" on

  winding coupled                       the core "13" is coupled

  magnetically to the first             to "14".

  winding"                     

 

 "characterized---lamp"                 The winding "14" is the

                                        output winding in the

                                        collector circuit of the

                                        inverter oscillator

                                        transistor Q1.

 

 "the core---having a                   A third winding "31"

  third winding---                      coupled to winding "15"

  converter"                            through core "13" is

                                        connected to a control

                                        device "30" forming part

                                        of the converter.

 

 "the third winding being               the winding "14" is

  magnetically coupled to               magnetically coupled to

  the first winding"                    winding "31" through the

                                        core "13".

 

 "and a series combination              the series combination of

  of a non-capacitive                   a variable resistor R2a

 variable impedance and a               and diode D2 are

 diode being connected                  connected in series

 between the ends of the                between the ends of coil

 second winding"                        or winding "15" as shown

                                        in figure 1.

 

 The capacitor defined in claim 2 as connected in

 parallel to the above series-combination is shown as C2

 in figure 1 of the reference.

 

 Applicant's remarks in the above letter relating to

 manual adjustment of the third winding voltage by the

 variable resistor have been considered. It is noted

 that this feature is not defined by the claims and

 therefore cannot be considered distinguishing over

 the reference.

 

...              

 

 The Applicant responded to the Final Action with an amendment to

 claim 1, and said in part, as follows:

 

      .. It was believed that the recitation of a "variable

 impedance" implied that the impedance is manually

 adjustable but it is conceded that claim 1 could have

 been more explicit in that regard. As amended, claim 1

 now recites explicitly that the impedance is manually

 variable and that manual adjustment of the variable

 impedance determines the voltage developed across the

 third winding.

 

  ...

 

By the letter dated April 18, 1990, subsequent to a telephone

discussion, the Applicant submitted one amended claim to replace

the two rejected claims, and argued in part, as follows:

 

.. This is further to a recent telephone discussion

between Mr. Brown of the Patent Appeal Board and the

undersigned. Mr. Brown intimated that the Examiner

would look favourably on a revision of the claim to

specify that the second winding is coupled magnetically

but not electrically to the first winding. Applicant

agrees with this suggestion and has amended the claim

to include the words "the second winding being

electrically conductively isolated from the first and

third windings,".

 

   The statement of invention on page 2 of the

disclosure has been conformed to the revised claim and

the first two full paragraphs of page 3 have been

revised and combined into a single paragraph also

consistent with claim 1.

 

...

 

The issue before the Board is whether or not the single amended

claim removes the rejection based on obviousness. The amended

claim of April 18, 1990 reads:

 

An electric arrangement for regulating the luminous

intensity of at least one discharge lamp, this

arrangement comprising an electric circuit having a

first winding arranged to surround a core of

magnetizable material, this winding being included in

an electric circuit for the supply of the discharge

lamp and this core further having a second winding

coupled magnetically to the first winding,

characterized in that the first winding is included in

a circuit forming part of a DC/AC converter for the

high-frequency supply of the discharge lamp, the core

of magnetizable material having a third winding which

is magnetically coupled to the second winding and is

connected to a control device forming part of the DC/AC

converter, the third winding being magnetically coupled

to the first winding, the second winding being

electrically conductively isolated from the first and

third windings, and a series-combination of a non-

capacitive manually variable impedance and a diode

being connected between the ends of the second winding,

a capacitor being connected parallel to the variable

impedance.

 

From a comparison of the amended claim to the rejected claims,

the Board believes the safety feature disclosed has been clearly

identified. By setting out that the second winding is

electrically conductively isolated from the first and third

windings, and that the non-capacitive manually variable impedance

and the diode are in series with the second winding, the single

amended claim presents an improvement in protection against the

risk of manual contact with the power supply portion of the known

DC/AC converter. The Board is satisfied that the single amended

claim overcomes the obviousness rejection.

 

The Board recommends, therefore, that the claim submitted

April 18, 1990 be accepted as overcoming the refusal of the

claims for being obvious.

 

M.G. Brown

Acting Chairman

Patent Appeal Board

 

I concur with the findings and the recommendation of the Patent

Appeal Board. Accordingly, I remand the application to the

Examiner for prosecution consistent with the findings of the

Board.

 

J.H.A.  Gari‚py

Commissioner of Patents

 

dated at Hull, Quebec

this 9 day of August , 1990

 

Fetherstonhaugh & Co.

Box 2999, Station D

Ottawa, Ontario

K1P 5Y6

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.