Appeal No. 2006-0576
Application No. 10/284,473
We have also reviewed the Arai and Nath references cited by the Examiner to
address the window shielding and heat sink fan features of the several of the dependent
claims. We find nothing, however, in either of the Arai or Nath references which would
overcome the innate deficiencies of the Glaus and Hampden references as discussed
supra.
In view of the above discussion, since we are of the opinion that the proposed
combination of the Glaus, Hampden, Arai, and Nath references set forth by the
Examiner does not support the obviousness rejection, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 17, nor of claims 2-16 and 18-27 dependent thereon.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of the appealed
claims based on the combination of the Hampden, Arai, and Nath references with the
admitted prior art. It is
apparent from our review of the disclosure of the admitted prior art at paragraphs 005-
0011 of Appellant’s specification, as well as the illustration in Figure 1 of the drawings,
that such disclosure, which describes a curing lamp utilizing a solid material heat sink, is
cumulative to that of the previously discussed Glaus reference. For all of the reasons
discussed supra with regard to Glaus, we find that the Examiner has not established a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007