Appeal No. 96-2682
Application 08/145,269
representative claim and claims 6 through 18 to stand or fall
together, with claim 6 being considered the representative claim.
On pages 4 through 13 of the brief, Appellants do not
specifically argue that Driessen fails to teach or suggest an
electrode lead for a lamp comprised of an alloy comprised of
between about 10 to 90 percent by weight tungsten and about 10
to 90 percent by weight molybdenum as recited in Appellants’
claim 1. As pointed out above, Appellants only argue that
Driessen does not teach a lamp including a hermetic seal between
a tungsten and molybdenum alloy as recited in Appellants’
claim 6.
The Examiner states on page 3 of the answer that the
prior office action, paper number 3, sets forth the rejection of
claim 1. We note that the prior office action is actually paper
number 4, since paper number 3 is the Appellants’ transmittal of
the declaration paper. On page 2 of the office action, the
Examiner argues that Driessen teaches a lamp electrode lead made
of an alloy of tungsten and molybdenum. The Examiner notes that
Driessen does not teach the specific portions of tungsten and
molybdenum but argues that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to provide an alloy comprised of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007