Appeal No. 2007-0800
Application No. 10/066,267
The Examiner notes that Eppley teaches the power source as being
detachably mounted to the base assembly, “having wire 18 mounted to flag
staff 14 as shown in Fig. 3 with removable fasteners (not labeled but see
Fig. 2).” (Id.)
While Muenchow does not describe the power source as being
detachably mounted to the base assembly with a detachable connection to
the light source, as recited in claim 8, the Examiner urges that “it would
have been obvious to provide Muenchow with a remote power source as
shown by Eppley et al for the purpose of changing the power source without
having to disassemble the reflective enclosure.” (Id.)
“[O]bviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.”
CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342, 68 USPQ2d 1940,
1947 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985, 180 USPQ
580, 583 (CCPA 1974)). Appellant argues that Muenchow and Eppley fail
to teach a reflective enclosure containing a light source and tiltable switch,
as required in claim 8. (See Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 4.) Specifically, Appellant
urges that the Examiner is incorrect in asserting that the enclosures of
Muenchow and Eppley are inherently reflective because they are visible.
(Br. 11.)
Appellant argues that the rejection “confuses ‘visibility’ with
‘reflectivity.’” (Br. 11; Reply Br. 4.) Appellant further urges that “persons
skilled in the art know that: reflective items may be visible to some extent
even when a light is not directly shined on them; and that a mirror has a
front surface which is reflective and a rear surface which is non-reflective
but may still be visible.” (Br. 12.)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013