Appeal No. 2007-0800
Application No. 10/066,267
merely throw back the light that hits it, is contrary to the meaning that one of
ordinary skill would give the term.
Appellant’s argument supports this conclusion. Appellant urges that
one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “reflect” to mean
“to prevent passage of and cause to change direction, as a mirror reflects
light; to bend or fold back; to throw back light or sound.” (Br. 11; Reply Br.
4 (citing www.m-w.com/dictionary/reflection).) Thus, giving the term its
broadest reasonable interpretation, one of ordinary skill would understand
that the term “reflective” does not require an object to emit light.
We therefore interpret the term “reflective enclosure” to encompass
enclosures that obstruct the passage of at least some light, causing it to
change direction, as well as enclosures that throw back at least some of the
light that falls on them.
2. OBVIOUSNESS
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Muenchow1 and Eppley.2 (Answer 3.)
The Examiner cites Muenchow as describing an ice fishing tip-up
with a reflective enclosure containing an electrically connected light source,
tiltable switch and power source. (Final Rejection 2 (October 19, 2005).)
The Examiner states that “[t]he reflective enclosure inherently can be seen
by others when shined upon with lights to verify the location of the flag
arm.” (Id.)
The Examiner cites Eppley as disclosing a tip-up with a reflective
enclosure containing a light source and a connected tiltable switch. (Id.)
1 Muenchow, U.S. Patent 5,979,101, issued November 9, 1999.
2 Eppley et al., U.S. Patent 5,067,269, issued November 26, 1991.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013