Appeal No. 2001-0243
Application No. 09/001,285
According to the examiner, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify the Lu device such that it had a reflected
[fluorescent] bulb as taught to be old by Takeichi
thereby providing the obvious advantage of increased
and steady lighting to the rear seat occupant.
To provide the reflector such that it is angled
30 degrees is considered to be an obvious choice
depending upon the range of light desired [final
rejection, page 3].
In further explanation of this position, the examiner
states
that
[t]he Takeichi reference is being applied as a
secondary reference only to teach the conventionality
of a [fluorescent] lamp on the rear of a vehicle seat
with a reflector (see item 11 in Fig. 6). The
primary reference to Lu teaches the conventionality
of angling the light emission at any desired angle,
and also teaches explicitly that “a plurality of
articles can be incorporated with the chambers, for
example, a TV set” (col. 5, lines 4-5). Therefore,
to replace one electrical device with another, and in
particular to replace a TV set with a [fluorescent]
light would have been an obvious choice to one of
ordinary skill in the art since Lu provides clear
motivation which teaches a plurality of items may be
placed in the headrest chamber [answer, page 5].
Arguably, Takeichi would have suggested the addition of a
fluorescent light to Lu’s backrest 50 in order to illuminate
the area behind the seat for reading. Claims 5, 6, 12, 15 and
16, however, through their respective parent claims 1, 8 and
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007