Appeal No. 1996-1387 Page 18
Application No. 08/110,269
layer and a lamp 10. Col. 7, ll. 35-43. The examiner erred
in reading both the dichroic reflector and the IR filter on
the reference’s interference filter. This is not permissible.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we
reverse the rejection of claim 16. Next, we address claims 17
and 18.
Claims 17 and 18
The appellant neglects to argue the rejection of claim 17
and 18. Accordingly, he has not shown error in the rejection.
Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 17 and 18. Next,
we address claims 19 and 21.
Claims 19 and 21
Regarding claims 19 and 21, the appellant argues, “the
references do not show IR-reflective coatings.” (Appeal Br.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007