Appeal No. 96-3201
Application 08/177,399
fall with representative claim 22; and claims 23-26 will stand
or fall with representative claim 23.
REJECTIONS
The examiner has rejected claims 1-7, 23 and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the lighting fixture
system disclosed in the Sill catalog.
The examiner has rejected claims 1-10, 12, 13, 23 and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Martin.
The examiner has rejected claims 1-13, 23 and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kao.
The examiner has rejected claims 1-13, 18, 20 and 23-26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Crider.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellants and the examiner. As
a result of this review, we have determined that the applied
prior art of references of Sill, Martin and Crider do not
establish prima facie cases of obviousness with respect to the
respective claims rejected thereunder. Therefore, these
rejections will be reversed. However, the prior art patent to
Kao does establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007