Ex Parte UMEHARA et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2000-2020                                                        
          Application No. 09/050,558                                                  

          pieces are welded to the peripheral surface of the base after the           
          elastic pieces have positioned the base.                                    
               Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as                  
          follows:                                                                    
               1.  An electric light bulb with a base, comprising a                   
               positioning ring adapted to be mounted in externally                   
               fitted fashion to the base which holds a glass bulb                    
               enclosing therein filaments, said positioning ring                     
               comprising elastic pieces and weld pieces formed on a                  
               fitting hole, through which said base is inserted, said                
               elastic pieces being adapted to resiliently abut                       
               against an outer peripheral surface of said base, said                 
               weld pieces being adapted to be welded to the outer                    
               peripheral surface of said base, and wherein said weld                 
               pieces are securely welded to the outer peripheral                     
               surface of said base after said elastic pieces are made                
               to abut against the outer peripheral surface of said                   
               base to be positioned.                                                 
               The Examiner relies on the following prior art:                        
          Wakimizu                      4,547,838      Oct. 15, 1985                  
          Van Heeswijk                  5,216,319      Jun. 01, 1993                  
               Claims 1-7 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)             
          as being unpatentable over Van Heeswijk in view of Wakimizu.                
               Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the              
          Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for the               
          respective details.                                                         

               1 The Appeal Brief was filed October 26, 1999 (Paper No. 16).  In      
          response to the Examiner’s Answer dated December 23, 1999 (Paper No. 17), a 
          Reply Brief was filed February 3, 2000 (Paper No. 18), which was acknowledged
          and entered by the Examiner in the communication dated February 22, 2000    
          (Paper No. 20).                                                             
                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007