Appeal No. 96-1931
Application 07/995,635
would simply be a useless waste. There is simply no suggestion
to use more than one coating in the Sulcs arc tube.
The only suggestion to use a second oxide coating on an
arc tube comes from appellants= specification wherein it is
disclosed that a different problem is solved by this second
coating. Absent an awareness of the disclosed problem and
solution, the artisan would have no basis to use a second coating
in the Sulcs arc tube. Therefore, based on the prior art evi-
dence provided to us, we conclude that the invention of claims 2
and 6 would not have been obvious to the artisan. Therefore, we
do not sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 6.
Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and recites that the
surface of the arc tube is polished. As noted above, the inven-
tion of claim 9 is anticipated by Sulcs. The examiner has
provided a logical basis for polishing the surface of an arc tube
[answer, page 5]. Appellants have presented no arguments in
support of the separate patentability of claim 10. Since the
examiner has established obviousness and since appellant has
failed to overcome the prima facie case, we sustain the rejection
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007