Appeal No. 2000-0829
Application 09/079,054
lines 42-52) and being able to retrieve the information
associated with a selected light (Taylor, col. 17, lines 45-52,
col. 34, lines 22-24). It is the examiner’s position that the
manner in which the “characteristics” or “adjustments” are
retrieved is not specified in Taylor, but that retrieving such
information using lists or menus for a selected object is well
known and would have been obvious.
Applicants’ arguments add nothing new to their argument
presented regarding claim 1.
For the reasons stated above in connection with claims 1-8,
we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and 18 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Taylor.
Claim 9
Claim 9 depends on claim 1 and recites “wherein said
lighting devices include portable lighting devices, removably
attached to temporary support structures.” In his final
rejection, the examiner directed the applicants to portions in
Taylor that describe lighting objects attached to support objects
that are movable. See paper 8 at 4.
In the brief the applicants argue that “claim 9 specifies
the lighting devices being attached to temporary support
structures. This is not disclosed by the reference.” (Brief at
8). The applicants fail to sufficiently rebut the examiner’s
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007