Appeal No. 2001-0013
Application 08/936,222
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
[see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 4, 6 and 13
based on Webb and Winkelhake. It is the position of the examiner
that Webb discloses the light fixture of these claims except for
torque spring receptacles mounted on the columnar uprights and
torque springs connected to the receptacles and to the baffle.
The examiner cites Winkelhake as teaching a recessed light
fixture having torque spring receptacles and torque springs which
are connected to the torque receptacles and to a baffle. The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007