Appeal No. 1998-2606
Application 08/446,415
As to claims 18 and 20, the incandescent lamp 38 in Fales
and those lamps shown in Long clearly are a diffusing light
source as claimed. The shroud 40 as well as the overhanging
part of the disc 30 provide the light box of dependent claim
19. Therefore, the subject matter of claims 18 through 20 on
appeal would have been obvious to the artisan.
We do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons we have reversed
the rejection of dependent claim 3 since claim 21 recites the
same "light absorbing shield" as recited in claim 3. Also,
the art relied upon by the examiner, Long and Fales, does not
teach or suggest the claimed light emitting diode required of
claim 21. 1
Page 9 of the brief indicates that appellants have not
argued the particulars of dependent claim 9 and the rejection
of this claim on the basis of the combined teachings and
showings of Long, Fales and Ikeda. Therefore, the rejection
of this claim is sustained.
1 We note in passing that "said light source" in claim 21
does not have any antecedent basis, but appears to be
referring to the claimed "light emitting diode".
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007