Interference No. 103,878
ordinary skill in view of the combined teachings from the
above-described prior art. It is our view, for example, that
it would have been obvious to eliminate the glass refractor
and extend the parabolic shade of the NEMA head, described as
prior art in the senior party’s patent, in view of the
teaching of the IES disclosure
that a shade extending past the lamp provides the desirable
“absolute cutoff,” provides more light “up and down the
street,” and further serves to protect the lamp from outside
forces. These teachings from the IES disclosure provide ample
express motivation or suggestion for such a modification.
By the same token, the disclosure of the Hubbell
Highbay fixture and the IES OV-18 Luminaire are evidence of a
recognition in the art that in some circumstances a glass
refractor or diffuser on the bottom of a metallic reflector
is not desirable, i.e., when a horizontal light cutoff is
desired both to provide greater downlight and to reduce glare.
Accordingly, following this recognized art teaching, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to dispense with
the glass refractor of the GE luminaire or to extend the
28
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007