Appeal No. 2000-1324
Application No. 08/649,487
in support of the rejection, and to appellant's Brief (Paper No.
15, filed May 25, 1999), Supplemental Brief (Paper No. 18, filed
September 24, 1999), and Reply Brief (Paper No. 20, filed January
14, 2000) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 17 and 18.
Independent claim 17 recites, in pertinent part, "a photo
catalytic layer provided on an outer surface of the light-
transmitting portion [of the luminaire]" (underlining ours for
emphasis). Although Akira clearly states (e.g., Translation page
6) that the titanium oxide or photo catalytic layer is formed on
the inner surface of the cover component of the lighting system,
the examiner contends (Answer, pages 4-5) that "[i]t would have
been obvious to have a layer inside or outside of the
transmitting portion, since this would fall withing [sic] the
routine design capabilities of the artisan."
The examiner has clearly overlooked the explicit teaching of
Akira (Translation, page 6) that "[t]he semiconductor is directly
irradiated by the light emitter because it (the semiconductor)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007