Appeal No. 95-4589
Application 08/042,888
1990) (in banc), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991)). Here, we
share the examiner’s view that Barbour’s teaching of a
centrally located large white bulb 41 surrounded by smaller
blinker lights 44 would have fairly suggested to the artisan
to make centrally located light 15 of McComb of greater
intensity than the surrounding flashing or blinking lights.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined disclosures of
McComb, Forrest, Swanson and Barbour.
Considering last the rejection of claims 9, 10 and 17 as
being unpatentable over McComb in view of Forrest, Swanson and
Turner, the examiner has relied upon the teachings of Turner
for a suggestion to rotate the secondary lighting elements of
McComb about the primary light element. We will not support
the examiner’s position. Turner is directed to an entirely
different type of device from that of McComb, namely, a beacon
for aircraft. To that end, Turner rotates a cylindrically-
shaped filter having colored filter segments about two
centrally located lights in such a manner so as to create
colored flashes of light. Absent the appellant’s own
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007