Appeal 2006-1414
Application 10/099,381
Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of independent claim 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Heller in view of Lonky and
Linder.
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HELLER IN VIEW OF LONKY
AND LINDER, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF ADAIR
The Examiner has rejected claims 2 through 6 and 8 through 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Heller in view of Lonky and Linder
as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Adair.
We note that Appellants’ arguments regarding this ground of rejection
are based on the premise that “Adair . . . does not remedy the basic problems
with the [prior] rejection” over Heller in view of Lonky and Linder (Br. 9).
We have addressed the arguments concerning these so-called
problems in our discussion of the prior rejection and remain unconvinced by
them for reasons given above and by the Examiner.
Regarding claims 6 and 12 specifically, Appellants argue that “Lonky
fails to teach that the resulting light [of Lonky’s disclosed chemiluminescent
light source] would be strong enough to be suitable for the device described
in Heller” (Br. 11).
We note that claims 6 and 12 recite the limitation “said
chemiluminescent material comprises a gel, liquid, or solid.” The Examiner
finds that “Lonky . . . teaches the chemiluminescent material to be at least
two materials . . . mixing together responsive to breaking the ampoule”
(Answer 5). According to the Examiner: “It stands to reason that the
material within the ampoules is a flowable material which includes a liquid
or gel” (id.).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013