Appeal No. 2000-0206 Page 17
Application No. 08/699,328
lacks a secondary traffic symbol "providing secondary traffic
information unrelated to the first traffic symbol and to the
first traffic information provided by the first traffic symbol."
Appellant's second argument (brief, p. 4) to the effect that
the secondary traffic symbol (the arrow) of Lectric Lites is not
a pictograph of at least a part of a regulatory or warning sign
because "[a]n arrow on its own obviously is not a warning or
regulatory sign" is not well founded. Claim 15 does not require
that the secondary symbol constitutes a regulatory or warning
traffic sign by itself. The traffic sign of Lectric Lites is a
regulatory or warning sign and the arrow is a pictograph5 which
is a part of that sign, thereby responding fully to the claim
limitation addressed in appellant's second argument.
For the above reasons, neither appellant's brief nor the
decision of my colleagues has persuaded me that the examiner's
rejection of claim 15 is in error. Accordingly, it is my opinion
that the examiner's rejection of claim 15, as well as claims 11-
5 A picture or picturelike symbol representing an idea
(Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition (Simon &
Schuster, Inc. 1988)).
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007