Appeal No. 2006-1148
Application No. 10/382,492
would not have sought to combine these references, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
improper.
We have reviewed the evidence before us, including, inter alia, the disclosures of the
applied references and the arguments of appellants and the examiner, and we conclude
therefrom that the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to
the instant claimed subject matter that has not been successfully rebutted by appellants.
We note that appellants have not denied the examiner’s finding that Schwarzbach
discloses the claimed subject matter except for the claimed environment. That is,
Schwarzbach describes a monitoring and control system for monitoring and controlling
lighting, having the plurality of lighting means, central computer, power distribution means,
interface means, and light controlling and monitoring means. But while Schwarzbach
describes such a system for use in residential housing, the instant claims recite the lighting
means to be field lighting at an airfield.
We agree with the examiner that the skilled artisan in lighting control systems would
have been led to apply Schwarzbach’s lighting control system in other lighting environments.
That, taken together with Tann’s showing of an airport lighting control system, would
clearly have led the artisan to apply the teachings of Schwarzbach in lighting control and
monitoring to the airport lighting control system of Tann.
We do not find persuasive appellants’ argument that the skilled artisan would not
have combined these teachings because of a disclosure in Schwarzbach that a lamp which is
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007