Ex parte SCOTT et al. - Page 11

          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            


Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007