Appeal No. 96-1083
Application 08/150,099
§ 103 over Flasck and Verstegen [answer, pages 5 to 6].
Appellants argue that Flasck is not a low-pressure mercury
vapor discharge lamp, but a neon tube which has a much larger
internal diameter than the Appellants’ invention [brief, pages
8 to 9]. The Examiner admits that Flasck and Verstegen do not
disclose this limitation, but contends that: “However the
discharge path depends on the length of the lamp and selecting
the length and the internal diameter of the lamp is depended
[sic] on the power consumption and the area of the display
panel.” [Answer, page 6]. We find that, without more, this
contention is a mere speculation.
We, therefore, reverse the rejection of claim 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Flasck and Verstegen. Since claims
11 through 14 depend on claim 10 and contain at least the same
limitation, their rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Flasck
and Verstegen is also reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1
through 3, 5 and 9 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007