Appeal No. 96-1931
Application 07/995,635
with an oxide of the claimed genus. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claims 5, 8 and 14 as anticipated by the disclosure
of Sulcs. Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and is not separately
argued by appellants. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection
of claim 9 as anticipated by the disclosure of Sulcs.
In summary, the rejection of claims 1, 5, 8, 9 and 14 as
anticipated by Sulcs is sustained with respect to claims 5, 8, 9
and 14, but is not sustained with respect to claim 1.
II. The rejection of claims 2, 6
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as
unpatentable over Sulcs and Acommon
knowledge in the art.@
Claims 2 and 6 are similar in that each recites that the
interior surface of the tube and the exterior surface of the tube
are coated with the claimed oxide coating. Sulcs teaches at most
that it is desirable to have a reflective coating around the end
caps of the tube. The reflective coating can be a white metal
oxide or a metal coating. The preferred embodiment of Sulcs uses
a reflective metal band around the exterior surface of the tube
at the end cap regions.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007