Appeal No. 95-4678
Application 08/097,572
evidence of non-obviousness is not commensurate in scope with the
subject matter actually recited in claims 1 and 9. Thus, such
evidence fails to outweigh the examiner’s reference evidence of
obviousness with respect to these claims.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 1 and 9 as being unpatentable over Duncan in
view of Shine.
We shall also sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of dependent claims 3 through 6, 16 and 17 as being unpatentable2
over Duncan in view of Shine since the appellants have not
challenged such with any reasonable specificity, thereby allowing
these claims to fall with independent claim 1 (see In re Nielson,
816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
We shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of independent claim 20 or of dependent claims 2, 7, 8, 14, 15,
18, 19, 21, 22 and 28 through 31 as being unpatentable over
Duncan in view of Shine. Each of these claims contains
limitations (e.g., the access plate recitation in claim 20)
2The reference to “said . . . incandescent lamps” in
claim 16 lacks a proper antecedent basis. This informality is
deserving of correction in the event of further prosecution
before the examiner.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007