Appeal No. 2000-0206 Page 12
Application No. 08/699,328
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring-in-part and
dissenting-in-part:
Having reviewed appellant's specification and claims and the
arguments advanced by both appellant and the examiner, I
conclude, for the reasons set forth herein, that the examiner's
rejection of claims 11-13 and 15 is sustainable and that the
examiner's rejection of claims 5, 6 and 16 is not sustainable.
Therefore, I cannot join in the portion of the opinion of my
colleagues addressing the rejections set forth by the examiner.
I do join in the decision to enter a new ground of rejection of
claim 15. Although I concur with the decision to enter a new
rejection of claims 6 and 16, my reasons for that decision differ
somewhat from those of my colleagues, as explained infra.
As acknowledged by my colleagues, appellant has not
contested the examiner's determination that it would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of appellant's
invention to attach the traffic sign of Lectric Lites to a post
as taught by Like. Rather, appellant argues that such
modification would not result in the claimed invention for the
following reasons.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007