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 13Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007