Appeal No. 2001-0013
Application 08/936,222
Appellant argues that there is no motivation to combine
the teachings of Webb and Winkelhake because they are directed to
different types of lighting fixtures. With respect to claims 4
and 6, appellant argues that Webb does not show a bridge, a
torque spring receptacle or a baffle. Appellant also argues that
Winkelhake does not have uprights and that the baffle in
Winkelhake is held in position by a tension spring member [brief,
pages 56-59]. With respect to claim 13, appellant additionally
argues that Webb does not teach a short crown formed integral
with the flat annulus. Appellant argues that the Winkelhake
fixture does not require the type of support which is required in
Webb [id., pages 60-61].
The examiner has carefully responded to each of
appellant’s arguments, and the examiner has explained how the
invention of claims 4, 6 and 13 would have been obvious to the
artisan despite the arguments made by appellant in the brief
[answer, pages 5-10]. We note that appellant did not further
challenge the examiner’s position as set forth in the response to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007