Appeal No. 2001-1918
Application No. 09/096,999
eliminate the magnetic component of the electromagnetic field being emitted from the
ballast circuitry.” Contrary to argument, however, the claims recite “reducing,” rather
than “eliminating,” magnetic component. On this record, as noted above, we find that
Blocher operates as the reference describes and reduces the magnetic component of
the electromagnetic field emitted from ballast circuitry, thus solving the alleged “long-felt
need.” See Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 768, 9 USPQ2d 1417,
1426 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“[O]nce another supplied the key element, there was no long-felt
need or, indeed, a problem to be solved.”) In any event, appellant has not submitted
any evidence to show a “long-felt and unresolved need” in the art.
Finally, it is unclear what we are urged to infer from the declaration submitted by
“a manufacturer of diffusers for lighting fixtures,” addressed at pages 10 and 11 of the
Brief. We consider it of no moment that “no one ever mentioned” the “problems of
electromagnetic fields from fluorescent lighting” to the declarant. As we have noted
previously, each of the two references relied upon by the rejection recognizes the
problems of electrogmagnetic fields from fluorescent lighting.
In light of the references supporting the rejection of the claims and the evidence
and arguments submitted by appellant in support of nonobviousness of the subject
matter as a whole, we conclude that the overall weight of the objective evidence of
nonobviousness does not outweigh the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007