Appeal 2006-2924
Application 10/668,522
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Ristow US 1,861,136 May 31, 1932
Heinze US 6,047,820 Apr. 11, 2000
Funk US 6,269,169 B1 Jul. 31, 2001
Solomon US 2003/0025316 A1 Feb. 06, 2003
Prescott US 6,805,459 B1 Oct. 19, 2004
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 1, 3, and 10 as unpatentable over Solomon in view of
Ristow and Funk, claims 2, 7, and 11 as unpatentable over Solomon in view
of Ristow, Funk, and Prescott, and claim 13 as unpatentable over Solomon
in view of Ristow, Funk, and Heinze.
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
Answer (mailed May 4, 2006). Appellants present opposing arguments in
the Brief (filed April 14, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed July 7, 2006).
THE ISSUES
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 10 as unpatentable
over Solomon in view of Ristow and Funk, Appellants do not argue the
patentability of dependent claims 3 and 10 apart from claim 1, allowing
them to stand or fall with representative claim 1. The issue before us with
respect to this rejection is whether Appellants have demonstrated that the
Examiner erred in concluding the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested the invention recited in claim 1 and, in particular,
modification of Solomon to provide “an ultraviolet light emitting diode
flashlight having a light source consisting of: a single light emitting diode”
as called for in claim 1.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013