Appeal No. 2006-1293 Παγε 9
Application No. 10/437,840
Misaresh and Hoshi to create a more attention attracting display and to allow the battery
to last longer.
The appellant argues that the prior art does not mention the need for a more
attention attracting display or the need to reduce the power required or heat generated
by the lamps.
We will sustain this rejection because, as we discussed above, Misaresh
describes a desire to form a more attractive display and this teaching, in our view, would
have motivated a person or ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Misaresh
with the teachings of Hoshi and Frazier.
To summarize:
The following rejections of the examiner are not sustained;
The rejection of claims 1, 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Fraser in view of Langhorne and Ray.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Fraser in view of Langhorne or Ray and further in view of Hoshi.
The rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Fraser in view of Langhorne or Ray and further in view of Misaresh.
The rejection of claims 1 and 3 to 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Misaresh in view of Fraser.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007