Appeal No. 97-2909
Application No. 08/332,317
Arlt et al. (Arlt) 5,017,839 May 21,
1991
Bergman et al. (Bergman) 5,059,865 Oct.
22, 1991
The appealed claims stand finally rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the following combinations of
references:
(1) Claims 1 to 11, Arlt in view of Meulemans;
(2) Claims 12 to 14, Arlt in view of Meulemans and Parham;
(3) Claims 15 to 21, Arlt in view of Meulemans and Bergman.
With respect to rejection (1), the examiner notes that
Arlt discloses a light generating means in a vitreous light-
transmitting envelope which is coated with a "dichroic coating
9 of titanium dioxide and silicon dioxide" (col. 3, lines 38
and 39). Since these are the same materials of which
appellants’ coating may be made, i.e., titania and silica, and
are claimed in claim 14, the examiner asserts that the coating
would inherently absorb ultraviolet while transmitting visible
light, as recited in appellants’ claims (answer, page 5). The
examiner takes the position that the claimed light source
would have been obvious because "Meulemans teaches only
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007