Appeal No. 2005-0128
Application No. 10/120,158
time of the invention to combine the low temperature LED array as taught by Hochstein
with the stainless steel substrate as taught by Ellis, which is not disclosed for use with
LED’s and not used at a significantly higher temperature than Hochstein. (Brief at
pages 19-20.) Furthermore, appellants argue that Ellis neither discloses nor suggests a
circuit for use in a LED circuit contrary to the examiner’s position in the final rejection.
(Brief at pages 19-20.) The examiner modified the statement of the rejection to remove
the statement that Ellis teaches a LED lighting circuit and summarily concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings.
(Answer at pages 3-4.) Furthermore, we find the examiner’s rationales for combination
are mere conclusions and not based upon the express teachings of Ellis. Moreover, we
do not find the examiner’s line of reasoning for the combination to be convincing based
upon the general teachings of Ellis without any suggestion for use in a LED circuit.
From our review of the teachings of Ellis, we find the word “led” rather than “LED”
for a Light Emitting Diode. (See Ellis at column 6, line 17.) Here, we do not find any
teaching or suggestion in either Hochstein or Ellis that would have suggested the
combination as maintained by the examiner. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection
of independent claim 1 since the examiner has not established the initial showing of a
prima facie case of obviousness. Similarly, we cannot sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 2-4, 7, 8, 19, 21, and 22.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007