Appeal No. 1996-2958
Application No. 08/150,053
As pointed out by Appellants (Brief, pages 8 and 9),
Marcy is not concerned with regulating traffic in a traffic
restriction area along a blocked stretch of roadway and,
further, in contrast to the claimed plural traffic lights,
Marcy discloses only a single traffic light. We are further
in agreement with Appellants’ contention (Brief, page 11) that
Marcy does not determine “clearance time” defined in the
context of the claims as “red phases” in the traffic
restriction area. These “red phases” define the time that the
signal lights at each end of the traffic restriction area are
red allowing traffic in the restricted area to “clear” the
area before traffic is permitted to flow in the opposite
direction on a green light cycle. In our view, for the most
fundamental reason, this feature is completely lacking in
Marcy since only one signal light, and that at a traffic
intersection rather than at a blocked restricted area, is
disclosed.
Further, our review of the Kishi reference, which the
Examiner has relied on solely to address the claimed movable
or portable signal light feature, reveals no disclosure which
would overcome the deficiencies of Marcy discussed supra.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007