Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
As per 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), which was controlling at the time
of Appellants filing the brief, we will, thereby, consider
Appellant’s claims 11 through 15 to stand or fall together,
with claim 11 being considered the representative claim.
Appellant argues that none of the references discloses or
suggests the Examiner's combination as claimed. Appellant
states
that the Examiner's assertion is that Miyake has phosphor on
walls, Tannas has AC dielectric layers, Buzak has channels and
Grier has furcations. Appellant argues that the portion of
each reference used have been pulled out and then reassembled
following the Appellant's claims not by suggestions in the
art.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the
prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the
Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007