Appeal Number: 2006-3176
Application Number: 10/203,620
We do not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 7 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Norifumi, Statesman and Ryuichi for the same reasons
above for claim 1, whose limitations are fully incorporated in these claims.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Norifumi, Statesman
and Shinji.
We do not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Norifumi, Statesman and Shinji for the same reasons above for
claim 1, whose limitations are fully incorporated in this claim.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Norifumi, Statesman
and Yasunari.
We do not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Norifumi, Statesman and Shinji for the same reasons
above for claim 1, whose limitations are fully incorporated in this claim.
New Grounds of Rejection Under 37 CFR § 41.50(b)
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b), we enter the following new grounds of
rejection:
Independent claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable as obvious over Norifumi, Statesman and Rice2.
In contrast with the lack of Norifumi describing modulation of light that
illuminates plants by music, we note that Rice provided such a teaching that
2 We will refer to the Rice provisional application 60/269,382 contents in this
rejection because it is the provisional application filing date that makes Rice prior
art to the instant application.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007