Appeal No. 1998-2148
Application 08/764,783
However, Appellants point out that a CHART, appended to the
brief, compares each claim individually to the applied
reference (reply brief-page 1). Placing substance over form,
we will consider the appended CHART as arguments in support of
the claims standing separately.
The Examiner reasons that Postma discloses the
claimed invention except for the range of pitch and wire
diameter claimed. The Examiner contends that these parameters
depend on the appropriate current and inductance needed for a
particular sized lamp, and the optimum or workable range can
be determined by routine skill in the art (answer-pages 4 and
5).
Appellants argue that Postma’s protuberance 3 is not
equivalent to Appellants’ reentrant cavity 2 because
protuberance 3 flares out at the bottom and it is uncertain if
there is a seal between the bottom of the flare on
protuberance 3 and the envelope. (Brief-page 11.)
These arguments fail at the outset because they are
not based on limitations appearing in the claims. Thus, the
flare of protuberance 3 and its being sealed to the envelope
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007