Appeal No. 2006-1293 Παγε 8
Application No. 10/437,840
. . . it would have been obvious to one in the art to modify
Misaresh by attaching a light sensor to the divider bar since
this would allow the lamps to be turned on automatically
which would help to create a more amusing eye-catching
display [answer at page 7].
Appellant argues that there is no mention in either Misaresh or Hoshi of creating
a more eye-catching display.
We do not find this argument persuasive because Misaresh teaches that
translucent material that is backlit, for example is used to produce a more striking
appearance (col. 3, lines 57 to 63). As such Misaresh does contemplate a more eye
catching display.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 1.
We will also sustain this rejection as it is directed to claims 2, 5 and 6 because the
appellant has not argued the separate patentability of these claims. See In re Nielson,
816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
We turn lastly to the examiner's rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Misaresh, Hoshi and Fraser. The examiner's
rationale regarding this rejection can be found on pages 7 to 8 of the answer.
Recognizing that Misaresh does not describe having the lamp operate for 30 seconds,
the examiner relies on Fraser for teaching the idea of having the lamp off after a
predetermined time. The examiner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to combine this teaching of Fraser with the teachings of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007