Appeal No. 1999-1925
Application No. 08/649,887
do not exist with the optical fiber of Mathews. However,
Mathews states (column 7, lines 27-31) that other
configurations other than an ellipsoidal configuration are
within the scope of the invention. Further, Mathews states
(column 2, lines 29-36) that Davenport discloses that the
light source can have a cylindrical, ellipsoidal, or tubular
shape. Thus, we find that Mathews alone suggests that an
elongated tube may be substituted for the ellipsoidal one.
Appellants contend (Brief, page 6) that Mathews disclose
that ellipsoidal is the preferred shape for their arc tube,
and, therefore, teaches away from an elongate shape. However,
a preferred embodiment does not constitute a teaching away.
In fact, as explained above, Mathews discloses that other
shapes such as cylindrical or tubular may be used instead of
ellipsoidal.
Lastly, appellants assert (Brief, pages 4-5) that Mathews
fails to disclose a convected power of less than 200 mg /cm or2 2
how such a convected power could be achieved. The examiner
contends (Answer, pages 4-5) that Mathews discloses a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007