Appeal No. 1999-1925 Application No. 08/649,887 No. 12, filed December 28, 1998) for appellants' arguments thereagainst. OPINION We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior art references, and the respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 8 and affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 9, 11 through 18, and 20. Regarding the rejection of claims 1 through 7, appellants argue (Brief, pages 3-4) that Mathews is directed to a horizontally aligned lamp rather than a vertically aligned lamp as recited in the claims. Specifically, appellants contend (Brief, page 4) that Mathews states that the available space for the lamp is 2 inches, or about 50 mm, in height and that the length of Mathews' lamp is disclosed as 40-100 mm, which would not fit vertically in the available space when the length is 100 mm. However, it does fit vertically when the length is 40-50 mm. Further, Mathews discloses that one goal is to fit in a 2 inch space, but does not indicate that they 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007