Appeal No. 96-1931
Application 07/995,635
The examiner asserts that providing another identical
oxide coating on the interior surface of Sulcs= arc tube for an
identical purpose would involve only routine skill in the art,
and that duplication of elements to multiply known results is an
obvious thing to do [answer, page 5]. Appellants argue that
there is no suggestion to duplicate the coating in Sulcs and
there is no motivation to do so. They also argue that such
suggestion cannot simply be pulled from the category of Acommon
knowledge in the art@ [brief, page 6].
When the positions of the examiner and appellants are
evaluated in view of the prior art evidence before us, we are of
the view that appellants= arguments are convincing that the
examiner has failed to factually support his position of obvious-
ness. The position that a second coating in Sulcs represents a
mere duplication of effort is without basis. Since the purpose
of Sulcs is to have the coating reflect heat back onto the tube,
a second coating would make no sense at all. If the coating
works properly, then a second coating would be unnecessary since
the first coating would reflect the heat back before it could get
to the second coating. If the coating does not work to reflect
heat back onto the tube, then a second coating of such a material
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007