Appeal No. 1998-0551
Application No. 08/299,292
amalgam controlled lamp, as opposed to Appellants’ temperature
controlled lamp.
The Examiner further responds that zinc amalgam works
because that is what Appellants claim (answer-page 5). But,
Appellants claim a temperature controlled lamp, and there is
no basis in Evans for determining the proper characteristics
for indium, let alone zinc, in a temperature controlled lamp.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of any claims directed to a temperature controlled lamp using
zinc amalgam. These claims include claims 7 through 10. With
respect to claim 1, the Examiner contends that the language
“which does not rely on amalgamative metal to control mercury
vapor pressure” is functional, and is given no patentable
weight (final rejection, paper no. 11, page 11). We do not
agree. In the context of this invention, with two methods of
lamp operation (temperature controlled and amalgam
controlled), the cited language is considered to be an
alternative way of expressing temperature controlled. Thus,
we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 6.
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007