Appeal No. 96-2682
Application 08/145,269
lead and a lamp envelope. We note that Appellants’ claim 6
recites an electric lamp comprising a sealed vitreous envelope
defining a hollow portion and at least one tungsten molybdenum
alloy electrode lead extending through said envelope into said
hollow portion, a hermetic seal being formed between said lead
and said envelope. Upon a closer review of Driessen, we find
that Driessen shows in figures 2 through 4 a sealed envelope
defining a hollow portion but does not teach or suggest at least
one tungsten molybdenum alloy electrode lead extending through
said envelope into said hollow portion.
We are not inclined to dispense with proof by evidence
when the proposition at issue is not supported by a teaching in a
prior art reference, common knowledge or unquestionable
demonstration. Our reviewing court requires this evidence in
order to establish a prima facie case. In re Knapp-Monarch Co.,
296 F.2d 230, 232, 132 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1961); In re Cofer, 354
F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966).
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 5, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007