Appeal No. 96-2682
Application 08/145,269
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 5, 19 and 20 are
properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus, we will sustain
the rejection of these claims but we will reverse the rejection
of remaining claims on appeal for the reasons set forth infra.
At the outset, we note that Appellants have indicated
on pages 3 and 4 of the brief the groupings of the claims. In
particular, Appellants state that claims 1 through 20 are con-
sidered a first group, claims 2 and 3 are considered a second
group, claims 7 and 8 are considered a third group and claim 15
is considered a fourth. On pages 4 through 13 of the brief, we
note that Appellants argue claims 1 through 20 as a group and
claims 2, 3 and 6 through 20 as a group. In particular,
Appellants argue that claims 2, 3 and 6 through 20 are patentable
over Driessen because these claims recite a hermetic seal between
a tungsten/molybdenum alloy lead and a lamp envelope. 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7) (July 1, 1995) as amended at 60 Fed. Reg. 14518
(March 17, 1995), which was controlling at the time of
Appellants' filing the brief, states:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007