Appeal 2007-2399
Application 10/896,417
Merits of the rejection over Reinert ‘362 in view of Reinert ‘201
On pages 14-17 of the Brief, Appellant describes the advantages of
the “present invention,” including its improvements over the assembly
apparatus described in Reinert ‘362. Appellant does not challenge the
Examiner’s findings (Answer 4) that elements (a) through (d) recited in
claim 21 are disclosed in Reinert ‘362 nor the Examiner’s conclusion that
the claimed invention would have been obvious over Reinert ‘362 in view of
Reinert ‘201 (Answer 4). We agree with the Examiner’s findings and
conclusion that the subject matter of claim 21 is obvious over the cited prior
art. Consequently, we affirm the rejection of claim 21. Because claims 22-
23, 25, and 26 were not separately argued, they fall with claim 21.
Obviousness over Reinert ‘302 in view of Reinert ‘201 and APA
Claim 24 further requires that a mud protection ring is position to
protect the lighting fixture and its lenses from grout.
The Examiner contends
‘362 in combination with ‘201 teach[ ] the invention as claimed
but lacks reference to a mud dam. On page 18 lines 11-12 of the
current specification the applicant states that a mud ring is,
“commonly known in industry.” It would have been obvious to
a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to have the ‘362 combined with ‘201 invention include a
mud dam as is known in the industry for the purpose of
expanding the capability of use of the inset light to a wide
variety of soil types without negatively impacting the
performance of the light assembly.
(Answer 5.)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013