Ex parte KAWASHIMA et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 97-1202                                                          
          Application 08/061,557                                                      


          claims 4 through 6 were amended, and in a second Amendment After            
          Final (paper number 14), claims 4 through 6, 9 and 10 were                  
          amended.                                                                    
               The disclosed invention relates to an indicator lamp.                  
               Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it               
          reads as follows:                                                           
               1. An indicator comprising:                                            
               an indicator lamp having a lamp case which is light-                   
          transmissive to light emitted by at least one light-emitting                
          element on one side of the lamp case, said lamp case being made             
          from a material through which a light indication of said at least           
          one light-emitting element is easily visible without being                  
          impaired by the reflection of ambient light from a surface on               
          another side of the lamp case;                                              
               a signal lamp comprising said at least one light-emitting              
          element located within said lamp case; and                                  
               a display unit mutually integrated with said signal lamp for           
          displaying information related to light emitted by said signal              
          lamp.                                                                       
               The reference relied on by the examiner is:                            
          McLaughlin et al. (McLaughlin)   4,975,694         Dec. 4, 1990             
               Claims 1 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as            
          being unpatentable over McLaughlin.                                         
               Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the                 
          respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.                    
                                       OPINION                                        



                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007