Appeal No. 97-2909
Application No. 08/332,317
(pages 6 to 7) that using a transparent film instead of
Meulemans’ doped quartz pieces is "not a mere matter of design
choice," but "there are many advantages" to applying a film to
portions of an undoped quartz arc tube vs. putting together
such a tube from pieces of doped and undoped quartz glass.
However, the fact that a modification of the prior art may
produce beneficial results is not conclusive on the question
of obviousness, but rather, if such results are expected, they
are evidence of obviousness. Ex parte Novak, 16 USPQ2d 2041,
2043 (BPAI 1989); affd. mem., 899 F.2d 1228, 16 USPQ2d 2043
(Fed. Cir. 1990). Here, we consider that it would have been
expected by one of ordinary skill that it would be less
laborious and/or expensive to apply a coating to a known lamp
envelope than to fabricate a new envelope out of pieces of two
different kinds of quartz glass. Therefore, the asserted
advantages resulting from appellants’ invention are not
persuasive that claims 1 to 21 would not have been obvious
over Meulemans in view of Bergman.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007