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 28Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007