Appeal No. 97-1202
Application 08/061,557
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 1 through
18.
According to the examiner (Answer, pages 3 and 4):
McLaughlin teaches a signal lamp (i.e., the visual
alert means 26 or the backlight means 30) comprising a
light-emitting element within the casing and a display
unit mutually integrated with the signal lamp for
displaying information related to light emitted by the
signal lamp (see fig 1-3). It is inherent that the
case of the lamp has to be light transmissive or
otherwise, the lamp would not serve as illuminating
purpose. It would also have been obvious that the lamp
case would have been made from a material through which
a light indication of the 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, since by common sense in lamp
case design practice, doing so, the optical quality
such as brightness, etc.. of the indicating visual
signals conveyed through the lamp case can be improved
than otherwise.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007