Appeal No. 1997-3919
Application 08/392,160
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and answer for the
details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claim 5 is properly rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus, we will sustain the rejection of
claim 5 but we will reverse the rejection of claims 1 through
4 for the reasons set forth infra.
In regard to the rejection of claims 1 through 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the Examiner argues that the
specification does not have support for luminous flux having
wavelength of a visible area. On pages 7 and 8 of the brief,
Appellant makes reference to page 5, lines 5 through 7, of the
specification that states that the light source 1 may comprise
"a halogen lamp which emits white light." Appellant argues
that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize
that a halogen lamp would emit luminous flux having a
wavelength of a visible area as set forth in Appellant's
claims.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007