Appeal No. 2005-0424
Application No. 09/873,845
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejections.
There is no dispute that Farquhar, like appellant, discloses
an illuminated globe having an outer translucent cover that
encloses an inner globe carrying an image on its surface and
having a light bulb inside. It is appellant's principal
contention that Farquhar does not teach or suggest projecting the
image on the inner globe on the inner surface of the outer cover
such that it is visible from outside the outer cover. Appellant
emphasizes that Farquhar projects the image on a viewing surface
8 positioned outside the outer cover.
It cannot be gainsaid that Farquhar teaches projecting the
image on an inner globe through the translucent outer cover and
onto viewing surface 8. However, it is our view that a
reasonable interpretation of appealed claim 1 encompasses such an
apparatus. Claim 1 on appeal simply requires that the image
which is on the surface of the inner globe is projected onto the
inner surface of the outer cover, which projection is performed
by Farquhar, and that the projected image is visible from outside
the cover. Manifestly, the projected image of Farquhar is
visible from outside the cover, i.e., on viewing surface 8.
Also, another reasonable interpretation of the claim language is
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007