Appeal No. 1999-1930
Application 08/907,859
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Dormer in view of Sherwood and Keiper. Appellants have indicated that claims 1-16
stand or fall together.
Rather than reiterate all arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, reference is
made to the briefs and answer for the respective details thereof.2
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
On page 5 of the answer, the Examiner discusses motivation to combine the
teachings of Dormer, Sherwood, and Keiper. The Examiner asserts that it would have
been obvious to provide “the battery charger of Dormer with the teaching of Sherwood in
order to provide a flashlight with a backup battery and power outage illumination so that the
flashlight can be found when power fails and other sources of illumination are unavailable .
. . [and] . . . to provide the indication teachings of Keiper . . . in order to provide a visible
indication when the batteries are being charged and when they can not be charged due to
power failure.”
Appellants traverse the rejection of claims 1-16 by asserting that neither Sherwood
nor Keiper teaches or suggests motivation to utilize teachings disclosed therein with the
2
See the brief filed January 19, 1999 and answer mailed February 16, 1999. An office
communication was mailed June 5, 2000 stating that the reply brief filed August 11, 1999 would not be
considered.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007