Appeal No. 96-0310
Application 08/084,502
take the form of either a courtesy lamp or a warning lamp. We
also see no patentable distinction in modifying the sound
alarm of Mullin to be a courtesy lamp as claimed. A courtesy
lamp functions to inform the operator of a vehicle condition
in the same manner that a sound alarm does.
As we noted above, the examiner and appellants have
addressed the obviousness of an invention which is not
commensurate in scope with claim 1. We would have some
difficulty accepting the examiner’s analysis if claim 1 were
properly directed to the disclosed and argued invention.
Since the examiner and appellants have not properly considered
the invention as defined by claim 1, our analysis necessarily
differs somewhat from the rationale employed by the examiner
in demonstrating obviousness. Notwithstanding our different
reasoning discussed above, we still rely on the prior art
applied by the examiner to support the obviousness of the
invention as recited in claim 1. Thus, even though we sustain
the examiner's rejection for different reasons than those
advanced by the examiner, our position is still based upon the
collective teachings of the references and does not constitute
a new ground of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007