Appeal 2006-2924
Application 10/668,522
modification and as modified in view of Funk, is a portable electric light
operated by batteries (FF5) and thus satisfies the “flashlight” limitation.
Appellants’ argument that “[t]he prior art of record is devoid a
greeting card having both visible and invisible ink indicia” (Reply Br. 2)
appears to be directed to the applied references individually and not to their
combination. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the
references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination
of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231
USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants’ arguments fail to demonstrate
that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combined teachings of
Solomon, Ristow, and Funk would have suggested the subject matter recited
in claim 1. The rejection of claim 1, and claims 3 and 10 standing or falling
with claim 1, and the rejection of claim 13, which stands or falls with the
rejection of claim 1, as discussed above, are sustained.
Turning now to the rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over
Solomon in view of Ristow, Funk, and Prescott, for the reasons set forth
above, Appellants’ arguments fail to demonstrate that the Examiner erred in
determining that the applied references would have suggested providing an
ultraviolet light emitting diode “flashlight” as called for in claim 11.
Moreover, Appellants’ argument that the securement of a UV lighting device
to a journal or diary would destroy the security purpose or objective of
Solomon (Br. 5) is not well founded. First, claim 11 does not require that
the UV LED flashlight be secured to the substrate. The securement of the
UV LED flashlight in a portable lamp, having a stand, for example, to allow
the UV light to shine in a desired direction, as taught by Solomon (FF5),
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013