Appeal Number: 2006-3176
Application Number: 10/203,620
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to
the respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations that follow.
Claims 1, 3 through 6, 8, 11, 12 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Norifumi and Statesman.
We note that the appellants argue these claims as a group. Accordingly, we
select claim 1 as representative of the group.
The examiner has applied Norifumi to claim 1 to show illuminating a plant
with a light modulated by some signal and Statesman to show exposing a plant to
music.
The appellants argue
Thus, in contrast to the present invention, neither Norifumi et al. nor
Statesman teaches to illuminating a plant with a light modulated by a
rhythm signal extracted from a musical composition produced
artificially. It is admitted that Statesman teaches that musical
compositions have an effect on plant development. However,
Statesman, fails to teach, mention or suggest illuminating a plant with
a light modulated by a rhythm signal, as in the present invention.
(Br. 10).
The examiner responds
The examiner maintains the position that Norifumi teaches a
semiconductor optical device and modulating light generated by the
light source with a rhythm signal to illuminate a plant and to effect
plant growth (Norifumi abstract and paragraph [0009]). Light
inherently has a frequency, in addition the light of Norifumi is
pulsed/modulated. Thus the light taught by Norifumi inherently has a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007