Appeal No. 2001-0243
Application No. 09/001,285
Thus, the appellant’s position that the subject matter
recited in claims 8 and 13 distinguishes over Lu is not
persuasive. Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 8 and 13, and of claims 1
through 4, 7, 9 through 11, 14 and 17 through 20 which stand or
fall therewith, as being anticipated by Lu.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 5, 6, 12, 15 and 16 as
being unpatentable over Lu in view of Takeichi
As implicitly conceded by the examiner, Lu does not meet
the limitations in dependent claims 5, 6, 12, 15 and 16 calling
for the lamp assembly to include a reflector for directing
illumination downwardly at an angle of from 20E to 40E (claims
5 and 16), a fluorescent bulb (claims 6 and 15), and a
reflector for directing illumination downwardly at an angle of
about 30E (claim 12).
Takeichi discloses a reclinable vehicle seat 1 having an
illuminating device 8 mounted approximately at the center of
the rear surface of backrest 5 for rotation between an “OFF”
position (see Figure 5) and an “ON” position (see Figure 4).
The device includes a fluorescent lamp 15 disposed within a
frame-like housing 11-13.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007