Appeal No. 1997-2856
Application 08/394,251
to the diameter of tube 25 that it would be impossible to
discern any shadow (Br9).
It is true that no shadow problem is expressly disclosed
and the Examiner has not demonstrated that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been aware of a shadow problem.
Nevertheless, Fodor shows that other lamp shapes may be used
and, absent some argument why Abernathy is limited to a
straight lamp, this is all the motivation that is required to
replace the straight lamp in Abernathy with one of the shapes
in Fodor.
Appellant argues that Abernathy's envelope is needed,
referring to page 2, column 1, lines 23-27 (Br10). However,
we note that several lines below that portion, Abernathy
expressly states that "[t]he envelope 12 may even be omitted
entirely in some cases" (page 2, col. 1, lines 31-32).
Appellant's argument is not persuasive.
Finally, Appellant argues that the feature of "two
straight cylindrical ... sections disposed parallel to each
other" is not disclosed or suggested by either reference
(Br10). The Examiner responds (EA15-16): "Fodor shows that
Abernathy can be U-shaped with parallel or non-parallel tube
- 18 -
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007