Appeal No. 2001-0013
Application 08/936,222
of these claims that are argued by appellant is met by
corresponding features of Webb and Winkelhake when the claims are
given their broadest reasonable interpretation. We find the
examiner’s arguments made in the response to arguments section of
the answer to be persuasive, and these arguments have not been
further addressed by appellant. Therefore, we agree with the
examiner that Webb and Winkelhake can be considered to broadly
teach the claimed bridge, torque spring receptacle, baffle and
the short crown with the flat annulus.
We are not persuaded by appellant’s argument that there
is no motivation to combine the teachings of Webb and Winkelhake
because they are directed to different types of light fixtures.
Webb needs to provide some type of arrangement to hold the light
fixture tightly and securely in place. Winkelhake is cited only
to show that torque springs with receptacles were conventionally
used for providing such attachment. We agree with the examiner
that it would have been obvious to broadly use the attachment
teachings of Winkelhake to attach the fixture in Webb to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007