Appeal 2006-1994
Application 10/253,705
electromagnetic energy from a thermal radiator (Answer 3). The Examiner
indicated that Sedlmeyr further discloses that the electromagnetic energy
supplied by the thermal radiator “lies in the wavelength range between 1.2
µm and 2 µm” (Answer 3). However, the Examiner indicated that Sedlmeyr
does not disclose the “claimed percentages [of the electromagnetic radiation
having the claimed wavelength] or [the] method [being used] for lamps”
(Answer 4). The Examiner concluded that “[i]t would have been an obvious
matter of design choice to provide at least 25% or more than 50% of
electromagnetic radiation supplied that lies in the wavelength range between
0.7 and 1.5 µm” (Answer 4).
Appellants argue that Sedlmeyr fails to teach “at least 25%” (i.e.,
claim 1) or “more than 50%” (i.e., claim 2) of the electromagnetic radiation
having a wavelength within the range of “0.7 to 1.5 µm” (Br. 5). Appellants
further argue that the Examiner erroneously relies on the holding in In re
Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) for the
proposition that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the
prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine
skill in the art (Br. 5).2 In this regard, Appellants argue that Sedlmeyr does
not disclose the general conditions of Appellants’ claims (Br. 5). Appellants
argue that Sedlmeyr uses a thermoreactive powder coating where the powder
is warmed throughout to the cross-linking temperature and cured (Br. 5).
Appellants allege that “[s]uch powder coatings are significantly different
from the wet or moist coatings used on lamp substrates” (Br. 5).
2 The Examiner cites to In re Aller in the “Response to Arguments” section
of the Final Office Action of September 17, 2004.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007