Appeal No. 96-0688
Application 08/105,465
taught by Reichert for the connections taught by Dana
III given the advantages of automatically only lighting
the shoe when in use and thereby extending battery
life.
Alternatively placing the lighting device of
Reichert in an athletic shoe would have been obvious in
view of Dana III given that it is clearly known to
light such a footwear. The substitution of LEDs for
the lamp of Reichert is deemed an obvious substitution
of known equivalents, as official notice is taken as to
their well known interchangability.
Moving the conductors as claimed or the battery as
taught by Reichert is not seen as being a patentable
distinction as the relative movement is the same in
either case (answer, page 4).
Like appellant, we are of the opinion that Dana III and
Reichert would not have been logically combinable by one of
ordinary skill in the art so as to result in and render obvious
the particular arrangement of LED, conductors and wafer battery
defined in appellant's claims on appeal. Absent any fore-
knowledge of appellant's own teachings, we fail to find in the
disclosures of Dana III and Reichert, or in the examiner's above-
quoted rather cryptic assertions of obviousness, any teaching or
suggestion of a light-emitting diode (LED) having a first
conductor thereof which extends in a cantilevered manner from the
light emitting portion of the LED and with said cantilevered
conductor also being positioned adjacent but not touching one of
the terminals of a wafer battery so that when weight is exerted
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007