Appeal No. 1999-1784
Application 08/710,853
teaches away from the present invention (reply brief, page 1).
In our opinion, appellant has, inappropriately, narrowly
focused only upon the specific structure of Berlant rather
than upon its overall teaching as it would have been perceived
by one versed in the art, i.e., the advantage of reflective
coating surfaces about an ultraviolet device to enhance
radiation. As explained above, and contrary to appellant’s5
view (main brief, page 11), the combined teachings of the
applied references would have provided ample motivation for
the proposed modifications, rendering the subject matter of
each of claims 10 and 11 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary, this panel of the board has affirmed the
rejection of claims 10 and 11, but has reversed the rejection
of claims 17 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
5A reference must be considered not only for what it
expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests. See
In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA
1979).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007