Appeal No. 95-2600
Application 07/990,458
different function or results. Therefore, we conclude that the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to claim 11. The rejection of claim 11
is reversed.
Claims 12 and 13
The same reasoning applied to claim 1 is generally
applicable to claim 12. The "support frame" and "goggle-shaped
housing" have already been discussed. Suwa manifestly must have
structure corresponding to "mounting means" to hold the frame and
housing together because it is shown as an assembly.
Appellant argues that claim 12 requires that each block have
a light as recited in claim 2, whereas Suwa uses a single lamp
(Reply Brief, page 9). This argument is new in the Reply Brief,
but will be addressed since claim 12 was addressed in the main
brief. Since the argument is new, appellant cannot complain that
our response is new. Suwa discloses that "the light from the
point-source of light can be effectively utilized by two optical
systems so that the consumption of power can be reduced" (col. 4,
lines 40-42). In our opinion, this would have reasonably
suggested to the artisan that a separate light source be used for
each block if power was not a problem.
- 17 -
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007