Appeal No. 1999-2443 Page 8
Application No. 08/857,144
The obviousness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5 and 9 to
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 4, 5 and 9 to 19 all include the limitation
"adapter for mechanical and electrical connection to a
lighting track." As set forth above, this limitation is not
taught by Mabrey. We have also reviewed the reference to
Boshear additionally applied in this rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 but find nothing therein which teaches or would have2
suggested providing Mabrey with an "adapter for mechanical and
electrical connection to a lighting track." Since the
combined teachings of the applied prior art would not have
suggested the claimed subject for the reasons set forth above,
the decision of the examiner to reject claims 4, 5 and 9 to 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
2The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007