Appeal No. 95-4589
Application 08/042,888
accordingly, the second prong of Wood is satisfied and Swanson
is analogous art.
While the examiner (as we have noted above) has
additionally relied on the teachings Forrest for a limitation
not found in representative claim 1, we are of the opinion
that the subject matter defined by representative claim 1 is
unpatentable over the combined teachings of McComb and Swanson
taken alone. This being the case, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, 12, 14-16 and 18-
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined teachings of
McComb, Swanson and Forrest.
Considering next the rejection of claims 4 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over McComb in view of
Forrest, Swanson and Barbour, we are of the opinion that the
artisan as a matter of “common sense” (see Bozek, 416 F.2d at
1390, 163 USPQ at 549) would have found it obvious to make the
centrally located light 15 of McComb (which burns
continuously) of greater intensity than the surrounding
flashing or blinking lights if, for no other reason, than to
make the center of the illuminating display the focal point
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007