Appeal 2007-2399
Application 10/896,417
Reinert ‘362 US 5,541,362 Jul. 30, 1996
Reinert ‘201 US 5,594,201 Jan. 14, 1997
Admitted Prior Art (APA) on page 18, lines 11-12 of the Specification
The following grounds of rejection are on appeal:
1) Claims 21-23, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Reinert ‘302 in view of Reinert ‘201 (Answer 4).
2) Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Reinert ‘302 in view of Reinert ‘201, and further in view of APA (Answer
5).
Claims 21-23, 25, and 26 stand or fall together because separate
reasons for patentability were not provided. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37
(c)(1)(vii). We select claim 21 as representative. Claims 21 and 24 read as
follows:
21. A stainless steel alignment assembly apparatus for airport
inset lights comprising:
(a) a stainless steel light fixture support base for placement as a
partially embedded light fixture in an airport runway, taxiway,
or other aircraft ground traffic area;
(b) a fixed connecting flange on said stainless steel light fixture
support base for holding an airport inset light;
(c) an extension flange having connecting means for attachment
to said fixed connecting flange on said stainless steel light
fixture support base;
(d) mounting means on said extension flange for holding an
airport inset light.
24. A stainless steel alignment canister set apparatus for an
airport inset light as set forth in Claim 23, wherein said mud
dam protection ring is positioned to protect the lighting fixture
and its lenses from grout, when grout is poured.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013