Appeal No. 1996-3042
Application 08/293,153
section 26b (answer, page 8). Appellants’ claims, however,
require that the air passes a light bulb twice, not that it
passes each of two light bulbs once.
We give appellants’ claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388
(Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551, 190 USPQ 461,
463 (CCPA 1976); In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ
464, 466 (CCPA 1976). In doing so, we conclude that the
claims require that the air flows past a light bulb twice
before it is released back into the room. Because the
examiner has not explained where the applied references
disclose or would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary
skill in the art, flowing air past a light bulb in this
manner, the examiner has not carried his burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of appellants’
claimed invention. We therefore reverse the rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007