Appeal No. 2000-0206 Page 18
Application No. 08/699,328
13 which appellant has grouped therewith (brief, p. 2), should be
sustained.
I agree with my colleagues that the examiner's rejection of
claims 5, 6 and 16 is not sustainable, but not for the reasons
cited above in the majority's decision.
Appellant argues that the applied references do not
establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the subject matter
of claim 16 because Lectric Lites lacks:
1) the secondary traffic symbol providing traffic information
unrelated to the first traffic information and
2) the secondary traffic symbol being "at least one sign shape
or object used solely for a regulatory or warning traffic sign"
(emphasis mine).
For the same reasons cited supra with regard to claim 15, I
do not find appellant's first argument persuasive with respect to
claim 16. However, I do share appellant's view that the arrow of
Lectric Lites is not a sign shape or object used solely for a
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007