Appeal No. 1997-0202
Application No. 08/247,709
arguments or evidence. In particular, while Appellants argue
that the emergency flasher of Ehrlich is not a “high energy
visually perceptible light” as claimed, the question of
obviousness in implementing such a light in Ehrlich’s system has
not been addressed by Appellants. As to Appellants’ argument
that it would not be possible to energize Ehrlich’s conventional
flasher light to a high energy level without damage, it is our
opinion that the skilled artisan, recognizing the obviousness of
using a high energy light for reasons articulated by the
Examiner, would not necessarily be constrained to use Ehrlich’s
existing light circuitry to properly implement the modification.
For the reasons discussed above, the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 39 is sustained.
Further, after reviewing the language of claims 2-5 which
are dependent on claim 39, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of these claims as well. We agree with the Examiner
(Answer, page 22) that the determination of the blinking on-off
interval discussed at column 7, lines 25-39 of Ehrlich would
establish a time period in which the warning light would cease
flashing as recited in claim 2. With respect to the reset
feature of dependent claim 3, we find the Examiner’s
determination of obviousness set forth at pages 21 and 22 of the
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007