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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007