Appeal No. 96-1931
Application 07/995,635
invention. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims
4 and 7.
Claims 11-13 depend from claim 10. We sustained the
rejection of claim 10 for reasons noted above. Claims 11-13
recite that the coating is made from yttria or a combination of
yttria and zirconia. The examiner relies on Coaton and Koury to
teach that oxide coatings of yttria and zirconia were known to
diffuse the loss of fill materials in lamps. Appellants again
argue that there is no basis for combining the teachings of
Coaton and Koury with the teachings of Sulcs.
For reasons we have just discussed, we agree with appel-
lants that the only basis for combining the teachings of Coaton
and Koury with the teachings of Sulcs comes from the hindsight
attempt to reconstruct the claimed invention. Such hindsight
reconstruction is improper. We do not sustain the rejection of
claims 11-13 on the evidence provided by the examiner.
In summary, the rejection of claims 4, 7 and 11-13 under
35 U.S.C. ' 103 as unpatentable over Sulcs and common knowledge
in the art in view of Koaton and Koury is not sustained for any
of the claims.
IV. New rejection of claim 1 under
37 CFR ' 1.196(b).
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007