Appeal No. 2006-0301 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/837,932
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Initially, we observe that appellant has elected not to argue claims 3-6, 8, 10-14
and 16-18 apart from claim 1. Thus, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.197(c)(7) in effect
at the time appellant's brief was filed, this panel is free to select claim 18 as the
representative claim on which to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims, with
claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-14, 16 and 17 standing or falling therewith.
Appellant argues on pages 3-5 of the brief and on pages 1-3 of the reply brief
that Schöniger does not disclose the electrical light source emitter, when emitting light,
substantially contacting the eroded transparent or translucent glass member. Initially,
we note that representative claim 18 contains no such limitation. It is well established
that limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re
Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982). Moreover, we note that
Schöniger does disclose, in Figure 4, substantial contact of the LED 15 with the light
guide panel 10.
While we consider the showing in Schöniger's Figure 4 to be unambiguous with
respect to contact between the LED 15 and the light guide panel 10, we also note that
Schöniger also discloses, in column 2, lines 31-37, that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007