Appeal No. 1997-2856
Application 08/394,251
capacity could not have been made small enough in 1942 to fit
into an ordinary socket are not persuasive in view of the
express disclosure in Abernathy.
Appellant argues that Abernathy does not have an enabling
disclosure. Patents are presumed to be valid and, thus, to
have an enabling disclosure. Moreover, patents are good for
everything they teach one of ordinary skill in the art. One
of ordinary skill in the art was taught to make a lamp with a
high frequency source that could fit in an ordinary lamp
socket.
Appellant argues that there is no factual support in
Abernathy or Fodor for the Examiner's reason to modify
Abernathy with a U-shaped tube structure to "prevent the leads
from casting a shadow outside the lamp" (FR8). Appellant2
argues that neither Abernathy nor Fodor suggests such a
problem and the diameter of the lead 27 is so small compared
Appellant "accuses Examiner of intellectual2
dishonesty" for his statement because the problem is not found
in either reference. Appellant is reminded of 37 CFR § 1.3
which requires applicants to conduct their business with
"decorum and courtesy" and that papers in violation of this
order will be returned.
- 17 -
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007