Appeal No. 2002-0532
Application No. 09/069,457 Page 8
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph is affirmed.
Turning next to claim 25, we agree with appellant (brief,
page 14) that the claimed lamp connector refers connector 434.
Turning next to claim 26, we agree with appellant that the
claimed connector sleeves refer to sleeves 532 and 538 (figure
28).
Turning next to claims 27-32, we agree with appellant that
the engaging element is connector 434. We are not persuaded by
the examiner's assertion (answer, page 4) that the cantilevered
arm does not engage that lamp as claimed. Claim 27 does not
require that the engagement element engages the lamp, but rather
that the engagement element engages the combination of the lamp
and the end cover.
Turning next to the claims filed September 8, 2000 and
misnumbered as 30-32, we agree with appellant (brief, page 15)
that the claimed connector sleeves refer to sleeves 532.
Turning next to the claim filed September 8, 2000 and
misnumbered as claim 31, the examiner asserts (answer, page 5)
that “it is unclear and confusing what applicant is referring to
in the limitation that the ‘lamp includes a cylindrical tube wall
. . .’ Is this the same as the ‘lamp wall extending in a second
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007