Appeal No. 1997-2856
Application 08/394,251
width (col. 8, lines 55-61). One of ordinary skill in the art
would have considered the spacing a lamp parameter to be
varied at will.
Independent claim 22 has not been separately argued but
includes a limitation similar to claim 10. For the reasons
stated with respect to claim 10, the rejection of claim 22 and
its dependent claims 23-26 is sustained.
Claims 1, 2, 10, and 18
Appellant argues that Abernathy is missing more than a
U-shaped lamp structure. Appellant argues that Abernathy does
not disclose that the lamp is adapted to be mounted in a
socket designed to accept an "ordinary household incandescent
light bulb" as recited in claim 1. The Examiner points out
(EA15) that Abernathy discloses in the first sentence that the
device is "adapted to be mounted in an ordinary household
outlet" (page 1, col. 1, lines 3-4). More clearly, we note
that Abernathy discloses that "the entire device may be
screwed into an ordinary lighting socket and operated
therefrom" (page 2, col. 1, lines 47-49). Appellant's
arguments (Br8) that the drawings do not suggest an ordinary
screw base and that a vacuum tube of sufficient volt-ampere
- 16 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007