Appeal No. 2000-0829
Application 09/079,054
Claim 11
Claim 11 depends on claim 10 and recites “wherein the
processor calculates allowable parameters that are a function of
the weight of the lighting devices.” In the final rejection, the
examiner argues that:
Taylor et al fail to explicitly teach the calculation of
allowable weight of the lighting device, however suggested
that CAD program can be used to obtained [sic] other
attributes of the model elements. Since allowable weight is
an element of the designing process, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the
invention was made, to implement the calculation of the
allowable weight of the lighting devices. Motivation of the
implementation is for avoiding stage collapse. (Paper 8 at
4).
Here, the examiner does not indicate that determining the
weight of the lighting device was well known, but rather that it
simply would have been obvious, based on no supporting evidence,
to calculate allowable parameters that are a function of the
weight of the lighting device. With respect to claim 11, the
examiner has failed to make out a prima facie case of
obviousness.
The examiner fails to provide sufficient findings of fact
that would support the conclusion that calculating the weight of
the lighting device by the processor to determine allowable
parameters would have been obvious. The examiner fails to direct
us to supporting evidence that would demonstrate that avoiding
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007