Appeal No. 97-1841
Application 08/315,052
limitations of the appealed claim. Nonetheless, the examiner
has cited Meijer which discloses, for instance in Figure 3,
illuminating a sign by lamps placed in front of the sign to shine
thereon. We agree with the examiner that it would have been
obvious to place lights as disclosed by Meijer in front of the
optical element structure disclosed in Palmquist to illuminate
the optical element structure. Indeed, lighted highway signs are
ubiquitous. It is our view that there is ample suggestion to
illuminate the highway sign disclosed in Palmquist if Palmquist’s
disclosed automobiles are not considered to provide a lamp means
that illuminates Palmquist’s sign. Accordingly, there is clear
suggestion for the examiner’s combination of references under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant has argued there is no suggestion or motivation
for combining the two references. As noted above, it is our view
that the examiner has provided ample suggestion for the provision
of the lights of Meijer for illuminating the highway sign
disclosed in Palmquist. The appellant further argues that it is
not the object of the invention to provide a lamp to illuminate
the optical element. However, we must note that the examiner’s
rejection of the claim on appeal is not directed to the object of
the invention, but rather to the claimed subject matter itself.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007