Appeal No. 1999-1925
Application No. 08/649,887
and Parham fails to cure the deficiency of the primary
combination of Mathews and de Vrijer, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claim 8.
Claims 9, 11 through 18, and 20 do not include the
limitation of convected power found lacking from the
combination of Mathews and de Vrijer. Instead, claims 9, 11
through 18, and 20 recite a multi-layer coating on the
exterior surface of the arc tube. The examiner combines
Parham with Mathews and de Vrijer to meet the additional
limitation.
Appellants argue (Brief, page 8) that Parham teaches a
coating to eliminate problems due to the convection hot spot
of a horizontally aligned lamp, which "would have little
bearing on a vertically-aligned lamp." Therefore, appellants
conclude that there is no motivation to combine Parham with
Mathews.
However, Parham discloses (column 1, lines 7-16) that
metal halide lamps emit UV radiation which is harmful to human
eyes and skin and that a need exists to block such radiation.
Parham further discloses (column 1, lines 17-27) that
conventionally a glass outer jacket is used to eliminate the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007