Appeal No. 97-2909
Application No. 08/332,317
the examiner. Arlt discloses coating the entire lamp envelope
with an IR-reflective coating in order to aid in providing a
fast start when switched on, and it is not evident why one of
ordinary skill would reduce this capability by eliminating
part of the coating. Meulemans does not furnish a motivation
for doing so, because Meulemans relates to UV absorption,
rather than to the IR reflection for which Arlt’s coating is
used. If anything, Meulemans might teach doping part, rather
than all, of the glass of Arlt’s envelope 2 in order to
provide selective UV absorption. However, since Meulemans
says nothing about IR reflection, it would not suggest
applying Arlt’s IR-reflective coating to less than the entire
envelope. The examiner’s assertion that this modification of
Arlt "could" be provided does not make the modification
obvious, since its desirability is not suggested by the prior
art. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-
84 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Rejections (2) and (3) will likewise not be sustained,
since the Parham and Bergman references applied therein do not
overcome the deficiencies of the combination of Arlt and
Meulemans noted above.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007