Appeal No. 96-1931
Application 07/995,635
discharge lamps and the coating in Sulcs is used for reflecting
heat only and has nothing to do with reducing diffusion of fill
materials [brief, pages 6-8].
When the positions of the examiner and appellants are
evaluated in view of the prior art evidence before us, we are
again of the view that appellants= arguments are convincing that
the examiner has failed to factually support his position of
obviousness. The position that a second coating in Sulcs would
have been obvious to the artisan is incorrect for reasons we
discussed above. We also agree with appellants that there is no
basis to combine the teachings of Sulcs with the teachings of
Coaton and Koury. The coatings in Coaton and Koury are at cross
purposes with the coating in Sulcs. The Sulcs coating reflects
light and heat back onto the tube whereas the coatings of Coaton
and Koury are designed to be transparent and to diffuse elements
other than sodium. There is no evidence other than appellants'
own disclosure that the particular oxides recited in the claims
would be effective in a sodium discharge lamp. The examiner=s
decision to combine these particular prior art references can
only be supported by the hindsight reconstruction of the claimed
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007