Appeal No. 2001-0013
Application 08/936,222
except for explicitly teaching a bridge shaped with sloped
supports. The examiner takes Official Notice that bridges with
sloped supports for supporting a light socket were well known and
were use for the purpose of increasing the strength of the
support while also reducing the weight of the supports. The
examiner finds that, as a result, the claimed invention would
have been obvious to the artisan [answer, pages 4-5].
Appellant argues that the use of Official Notice as a
principal element in a combination rejection is improper.
Although the examiner cited Williams to support his Official
Notice, appellant argues that there is no suggestion to make the
combination. Appellant argues that since no bridge is taught in
Webb anyway, there can be no Official Notice for modification.
Appellants also make the same arguments considered above.
Additionally, appellant argues that the reflector of Webb is not
a baffle. Appellant argues that there is no ballast mount as
such taught by Webb [brief, pages 61-71].
The examiner responds by confirming his reliance on
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007