Appeal No. 2002-0515
Application No. 09/222,092
critical to the De DeVries et al[.] method.” (Brief, p. 8). Appellants’ argument is not
directed to the Examiner’s motivation for combining the teachings of DeVries and Bolton.
Claim 3 further describes the source of the UV light as coming from 4 or more ultraviolet
lamps. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the intensity of the
light generated from the light source would increase proportionally with the number of
ultraviolet lamps used. Appellants have not argued otherwise.
The Examiner rejected claim 4 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of DeVries and Duclos. The Examiner asserts that the use of more
filters in the apparatus of DeVries would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art. (Answer, p. 6). Appellants discussion of the Examiner’s rejection, Brief, pages 8 to
9, does not address the suitability of using more than one filter in the apparatus of DeVries.
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 8, 10 and 18 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over DeVries and Burchill. (Answer, pp. 6-7). We select claim 5 as
representative. The Examiner asserts that the arrangement of the filters and lens in the
apparatus of DeVries would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. A
person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that filters function to block
portions of the light and the lens functions to focus the light. The Appellants’ discussion of
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007