Appeal No. 2000-0234 Page 4
Application No. 08/730,236
OPINION
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 6-20. Accordingly, we
reverse.
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or
appellants in toto, we address the main point of contention
therebetween. Admitting that Nallinger does not “stat[e] that
a strobe light is activated by the turn signals,” (Examiner’s
Answer at 4), the examiner asserts, "Elmer teaches that it is
desirable under low visibility conditions to strobe, or flash
a light on a vehicle, such as during fog, order to enhance the
visibility of a vehicle (col. 1, lines 19-26)." (Id. at 5.)
The appellants argue, "Elmer just teaches flashing a light at
regular second speeds, as is evidenced by his use of an
existing flasher 36 [co1.2, line 59]." (Reply Br. at 6.)
In deciding obviousness, “[a]nalysis begins with a key
legal question -- what is the invention claimed?” Panduit
Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007