Appeal No. 2006-0126 Application No. 10/140,619 output is based. Because the change in light intensity is a control variable, Kojima ‘546 would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, displaying the corresponding change in ultraviolet light output to permit monitoring the adequacy of the control. For the above reasons we are not persuaded of reversible error in the examiner’s rejection. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the appellants’ admitted prior art in view of Kojima ‘546) is affirmed. AFFIRMED LEE E. BARRETT ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) ) BOARD OF PATENT TERRY J. OWENS ) APPEALS Administrative Patent Judge ) AND ) INTERFERENCES ) ) ) JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) Administrative Patent Judge ) TJO/sld 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007