Appeal 2006-2924
Application 10/668,522
reference be bodily incorporated into the primary reference. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Moreover,
the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art
reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment. See
Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889, 221 USPQ 1025,
1032 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Rather, the Examiner proposes modification of
Solomon to use a single UV LED, a known UV light source, as evidenced
by Funk (FF8), to illuminate the UV ink writing in a manner which reduces
energy consumption, heat generation, and cost and provides a longer lasting
light source. Such an arrangement would certainly appear to offer the
simplicity befitting a greeting card.
Appellants also argue that the combination of references applied by
the Examiner “fails to satisfy the limitations of a ‘flashlight’ as used within
the claims and specification” (Br. 4), but do not cogently explain why this is
the case. We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications “not
solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their
broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
(quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70
USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). A “flashlight” is ordinarily
understood to be “a portable electric light, usually operated by batteries”
(Webster's New World Dictionary 531 (David B. Guralnik ed., 2nd coll. ed.,
Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1984)) and Appellants’ Specification does not
provide a definition or description of the UV LED “flashlight” that differs
from the conventional use of this term. Solomon’s UV lamp, both without
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013