Appeal No. 95-2111
Application 07/771,173
claims as well. See Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1570, 2 USPQ2d at
1526.
We turn now to the examiner’s rejection of claims 4-
7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Davies in
view of Symonds. We find that Symonds discloses a quartz rod
for use with ultra-violet lamps in which the lateral portions
are formed to distribute rays evenly through the sides (Page
1, lines 13-15). In two embodiments depicted in Figures 4 and
11, the lamp has a convex bulbous termination.
It is the examiner’s opinion that:
It would have been obvious to the artisan
or ordinary skill to configure the end of
the Davies radiator as taught by Symonds,
since these are equivalents... [Examiner’s
Answer at page 7].
Appellants argue that there is no suggestion to
combine the teachings of Symonds and Davies. We find
ourselves in agreement with appellants that there is no
suggestion to combine the teachings of Davies and Symonds.
The lateral portions of the lamp disclosed in Symonds are
formed to distribute rays evenly through the sides (Page 1,
lines 13-15). The device in Davies is configured to focus the
laser energy on a focal point 37 (Col. 2, lines 66-67). As
-13-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007