Appeal No. 2004-0024
Application No. 09/249,922 Page 16
temperature. Considering all of the evidence before us, we find
that it would not have been obvious to an artisan to use a color
temperature at or above 5000/ Kelvin, as recited in claims 2
and 4.
Accordingly, the examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gaus in view
of Cockram and further in view of Graham is reversed.
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and has not been separately
argued by appellants. We observe that claim 3 does not recite
that the color temperature is at or above 5000/ Kelvin. From the
lack of any specific arguments by appellants, and the disclosure
of Graham that the percentages of the additives is important in
optimizing efficacy and controlling the color temperature of the
lamp, we affirm the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007