Appeal No. 2006-1293 Παγε 5
Application No. 10/437,840
Appellant respectfully declines on the grounds that the same
is unnecessary [brief at page 3].
We will sustain this rejection. We note that the amendment referred to by the
appellant has not been entered (see answer at page 8). We agree with the examiner
that as claim 1 recites "at least one lamp" and claim 7 recites "a plurality of lamps" it is
not clear whether the plurality of lamps of claim 7 is a part of the at least one lamp or is
a plurality of lamps in addition to the at least one lamp. Similarly, as claim 1 recites "at
least one advertising panel" and claim 7 which is dependent on claim 1 recites "the four
panels,” it is not clear whether the four panels are included in the "at least one
advertising panel" recited in claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain this rejection.
We turn next to the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser in view Langhorne or Ray.
It is the examiner's view that Fraser describes the invention as claimed except
that Fraser does not describe that the advertising panel includes textual information.
The examiner relies on Langhorne and Ray to supply the teaching of combining textual
information along with graphical information.
We will not sustain this rejection because we agree with the appellant that Fraser
does not describe a motion detector operative to activate a lamp in response to motion
detected outside the form, as is required by claim 1. In contrast, Fraser discloses that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007