Appeal No. 95-4589
Application 08/042,888
Page 4 of the answer then states that it would have been
obvious to (1) arrange the circuit of McComb “to provide a
clockwise and counterclockwise illuminated rotating sequence”5
as shown by Forrest and (2) enclose the circuit means of
McComb within the housing in view of the teachings of Swanson.
The appellant does not identify any specific errors with
respect to the above-noted findings by the examiner as to the
content of McComb. Instead, the appellant merely broadly
asserts that
it is not even clear that there is a central
lighting element and the secondary lighting elements
do not appear to include the kinds of color
sequencing and safety features present in
applicant’s device. McComb merely shows an
illuminating device having areas of color overlays
and with the flashing of various lights to make an
attractive sign. This is quite different from
applicant’s safety light as present in the claims.
[Brief, pages 3 and 4.]
We are unpersuaded by the appellant’s arguments. As the
examiner has noted with respect to McComb, the central
lighting element 15 is continuously illuminated and may be
considered to be “at least one primary lighting element” and
5We observe, however, that there is no limitation in
representative claim 1 which requires such a sequence.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007