Appeal No. 2006-0301 Παγε 6
Application No. 09/837,932
claim 18, or claim 1, the only independent claim which recites the limitation on which
appellant's arguments are centered, as being unpatentable over Schöniger in view of
Torrence. The examiner's rejection of representative claim 18, as well as claims 1, 3-6,
8, 10-14, 16 and 17 which stand or fall therewith, is thus sustained.
The appellant's additional argument with respect to claim 7 is that there is no
teaching in Schöniger or Torrence that the reflective opaque glass backing member is at
least partially painted. This argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 7,
which simply requires that at least one of said eroded transparent glass member, said
eroded translucent glass member or said reflective opaque glass backing member is at
least partially painted.1 With regard to this limitation, the examiner points out on page 4
of the answer that the logo symbols 13, which are applied to the light guide panel 10,
may be in the form of vapor coatings (Schöniger, column 4, line 30) and appellant does
not dispute that this would meet the claim limitation. Accordingly, the rejection of claim
7 is also sustained.
We shall not, however, sustain the rejection of claim 9. Neither Schöniger nor
Torrence discloses a rope light, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
to comprise tubing having spaced bulbs disposed therein.
1 As pointed out on page 5 of the answer, the examiner denied entry of the amendment to claim 7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007