Appeal No. 2005-2174
Application No. 10/060,614
those relating to the mechanical aspects are taught by Boggess and those pertaining to
the illumination aspects are disclosed by Sernovitz.
For these reasons, the appellant’s declaration evidence of non-obviousness is
seriously flawed and, considering the totality of the record, is far outweighed by the
examiner’s evidence of obviousness. The preponderance of all of the evidence justifies
the examiner’s conclusion that the differences between the subject matter recited in
claims 61-71 and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
art.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims
61-71 as being unpatentable over Boggess in view of Sernovitz.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 61-71 is affirmed.
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007