Appeal No. 2004-0024
Application No. 09/249,922 Page 13
From all of the above, we are not convinced of any error on
the part of the examiner in the rejection of claim 1, and find
that the evidence provided by appellants to be insufficient, on
balance, to overcome the strength of the prima facie case of
obviousness of claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to claims 2-4, as being unpatentable over Gaus
in view of Cockram and further in view of Graham. As noted by
the examiner, Graham teaches the lamps operative range of 8-22
watts, and an arc gap of between 0.7-1.4mm. With regard to the
claimed color temperature at or above 5000/K, the examiner
acknowledges that this is not shown by the references, but
asserts (answer, page 4) that the claimed color temperature would
have been obvious from Graham's teaching that the percentage of
weight of the additives (metal halides) is important in
optimizing efficiency and controlling color temperature. The
examiner adds (answer, page 5) that "in the absence of unexpected
or unobvious results, the specific color temperature at 5000/
degree Kelvin is considered a design choice."
Appellants assert (brief, page 5) that Graham discloses a
color temperature of 3,800" Kelvin, and argues that Graham cannot
be cited for any color temperature, but only for the color
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007