Appeal No. 1998-1919 Page 8
Application No. 08/620,993
to be interchangeable in said device with said second
container.
The appellant argues (brief, p. 4) that Ursrey "contains
no suggestion of interchangeable containers." We agree. We
note that the examiner did not respond to this argument in the
answer. We have reviewed the disclosure of Ursrey,
particularly the disclosure concerning the LED light sources
and fail to find any teaching or suggestion that the LED light
sources would have been made to be interchangeable with other
LED light sources.
Since all the limitations of claim 9, and claim 10
dependent thereon, are not found in Ursrey, the decision of
the examiner to reject claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) is reversed.
The obviousness issues
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 4, 16-23
and 33-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Ursrey. We sustain the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007