Appeal 2006-1414
Application 10/099,381
Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s findings (Br. 11). Instead,
Appellants simply argue that Lonky’s chemiluminescent light source “would
[not] be strong enough to be suitable for the device described in Heller”
(id.). As previously explained, this argument is unpersuasive. Moreover,
the argument does not directly address the specific limitations of claims 6
and 12 or the Examiner’s position concerning these limitations.
Thus, we are convinced that the Examiner has made a prima facie
case of obviousness for the reasons set forth by the Examiner.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of 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.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
1. we have affirmed the rejection of claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Heller in view of Lonky and Linder; and
2. we have affirmed the rejection of 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.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013