Appeal 2006-2924
Application 10/668,522
Appellants do not separately argue the rejection of claim 13 as
unpatentable over Solomon in view of Ristow, Funk, and Heinze apart from
the rejection of claim 1. Claim 13 therefore stands or falls with claim 1. See
In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
With respect to the rejection of claims 2, 7, and 11 as unpatentable
over Solomon in view of Ristow, Funk, and Prescott, Appellants do not
argue claims 2 and 7 apart from claim 11, permitting them to stand or fall
with representative claim 11. The dispositive issues in deciding the appeal
of the rejection of claim 11 are (1) whether Appellants have demonstrated
that the Examiner erred in concluding the combined teachings of the applied
references would have suggested providing Solomon with an ultraviolet light
emitting diode “flashlight” as called for in claim 11 and (2) whether
Appellants have demonstrated that the Examiner erred in concluding the
combined teachings of the applied references would have suggested
providing Solomon with a securement retaining the ultraviolet light emitting
diode flashlight, as also called for in claim 11.
FINDINGS OF FACT
FF1. Appellants do not provide a definition of “flashlight” in their
Specification.
FF2. Appellants describe, in the embodiment of Fig. 4, an ultraviolet
flashlight in the form of an ultraviolet light emitting diode (UV LED) 62
housed in a housing along with a battery 66 and switch 70 (Specification
5:15-23) or, in the embodiment depicted in Figs. 5A and 5B, in the form of a
UV LED 102 including at least one button-type battery 106 and spring
loaded switch 170 that activates the UV LED 102 upon the folded portion of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013